Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

PRIVATE BUSINESS

MANCHESTER CORPORATION BILL (By Order)

Third Reading deferred till Wednesday next at Seven o'clock.

WALTHAM HOLY CROSS URBAN DISTRICT COUNCIL BILL [Lords] (By Order)

Read the Third time and passed, with Amendments.

ASHTON-UNDER-LYNE STALYBRIDGE AND DUKINFIELD (DISTRICT) WATERWORKS BILL [Lords] (By Order)

COVENTRY CORPORATION BILL [Lords] (By Order)

As amended, considered; to be read the Third time.

STANDING ORDERS

Mr. Brockway: May I rise on a point of order, Mr. Speaker, and ask your guidance whether I should be in order in moving the suspension of Standing Orders with a view to obtaining an immediate statement from the Prime Minister on the international crisis. In the shadow of the fact that we are moving towards—

Mr. Speaker: Order. I can answer the hon. Member. There is no necessity for the hon. Member to move such a Motion—even if it were possible, which I do not think it is—for there is to be a statement by the Prime Minister on this matter after Questions

Mr. Brockway: Arising from that point of order. Mr. Speaker, may I say that, even while we are asking these questions, decisive steps may be taken which may bring the world to war?

Mr. Bottomley: Further to that point of order. Is not it a fact, Mr. Speaker,

that there is a Private Notice Question? Does not that have priority over others and, if that hon. Member were present, would not he be the one to put it to you?

Mr. Speaker: In any event, procedurally the hon. Member for Eton and Slough (Mr. Brockway) is completely out of order as such a Motion to suspend the Standing Orders requires notice, and he has given none.

Oral Answers to Questions — AGRICULTURE, FISHERIES AND FOOD

West Duddo Farm, Stannington

Mr. Owen: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food why the Northumberland County Council has been refused the request to purchase West Duddo Farm, Stannington, for the purpose of its development as small holdings.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): In present circumstances, my right hon. Friend's view is that such capital as is available for expenditure by smallholdings authorities should be devoted to schemes for the improvement of existing holdings rather than to the acquisition of estates for the creation of new holdings.

Mr. Owen: Am I to understand from that reply that it is only because of prevailing circumstances that the request has been refused, and that the Minister might still be prepared to consider the suggestion of the county council that the farm be secured on lease until such time as circumstances permit its purchase and subsequent development?

Mr. Godber: As the hon. Member knows, I have personally given a great deal of consideration to this particular case. I do not think I can hold out such hope to him. This is merely deferring the question of expenditure and at present we have a heavy backlog of other expenditure in relation to smallholdings. I think it would be wrong for me to pretend that there is any hope which I can foresee in the immediate future of acceding to this request.

Mr. T. Williams: Are we to understand that the Government have closed dawn on any possibility of acquiring smallholdings anywhere, apart from Northumberland?

Mr. Godber: No, Sir. I am grateful to the right hon. Member for giving me an opportunity to make the point clear. I was speaking in reference to a particular case. The Government have not put a blanket over this question at all, but in general we would need to be very well satisfied that it was right to spend money on new smallholdings rather than on developing existing establishments.

Potatoes (Guarantee Scheme)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement on the financial arrangements of the new guarantee system for potatoes.

Mr. Godber: Discussions with the producers' representatives are still going on and I cannot yet add to the reply given on 30th June to the hon. Member for Devizes (Mr. Pott).

Mr. Willey: While I appreciate the Parliamentary Secretary's position, may I none the less ask whether he is aware that the producers cannot judge this scheme until they know what the financial provisions are? Can he assure the House that the provisions will overtly fall within the spirit of the 1957 Act?

Mr. Godber: I gladly assure the House that this will come fully within the ambit of the 1957 Act in respect of guarantees. This is a change from an individual guarantee to a global guarantee, but the 1957 Act fully operates.

Sir J. Duncan: Will my hon. Friend give an assurance that any new arrangements made will see that Britain can feed herself in potatoes in any year of bad yield?

Mr. Godber: My hon. Friend is asking me to do something which it would be impossible to do because of the weather conditions which in certain circumstances—in the last two years out of three—have made very great difficulties. I think, however, that the plan which we have here is adequate in any normal circumstances which the Government envisage.

Fisheries, Essex Coastal Waters

Mr. Ridsdale: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a statement about measures being taken to protect Essex coastal waters from overfishing by foreign vessels and to prevent intrusion within the three-mile limit.

Mr. Godber: The conservation measures in force under the International Fisheries Convention of 1946, which is concerned with the protection of most kinds of white fish apply to these waters.
Frequent patrols are carried out in this area by vessels of the Fishery Protection Squadron for the purpose of preventing fishing by foreign vessels within the three-mile territorial sea.

Mr. Ridsdale: Is my hon. Friend aware that it is not competition but over-fishing of which the local fishermen are afraid? Is he aware of the presence of foreign factory ships in the area, and can he say whether in any further negotiations which take place on the three-mile limit a line could be drawn from headland to headland?

Mr. Godber: I will take note of my hon. Friend's suggestion in relation to this. I would remind him that the Government have been taking a leading part in negotiations for a new convention on conservation. It is hoped that the new convention will be adopted and signed within the next six months, but it would require ratification by all the subscribing Governments.

Mr. T. Williams: Can the Minister give any idea how many infringements have been detected over the past eight to ten years and how many prosecutions there have been?

Mr. Godber: I could not give the figure offhand for the last eight to ten years. I am aware that one French vessel was arrested in the Thames Estuary last August.

Ice Cream Regulations

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether, before bringing the new Ice Cream Regulations into force, he will consult with the


various representative advertising organisations with a view to ascertaining whether, in their opinion, it will be practicable to allow a product made with non-milk fat to be described as ice cream but not to be advertised in any way that will suggest that the product has any relation to butter, cream or milk or anything connected with the dairy industry.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has invited the comments of the manufacturers of ice cream about the details to be contained in the proposed Regulations, which are designed to distinguish clearly between ices made entirely from dairy products and other ice cream.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: Is my hon. Friend aware that the present draft Regulations may be quite unworkable in their present form and that the National Farmers' Union and the Milk Marketing Board are very disturbed about the position? Is he aware that unless these draft Regulations are amended the public will continue to be deceived about the composition of a large proportion of so-called ice cream?

Mr. Godber: I am not sure that I agree with my hon. and gallant Friend. There is another Question to be answered in relation to the organisations which have been consulted.

Lieut.-Colonel Bromley-Davenport: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what organisations will be consulted by him about the amended Ice Cream Regulations; and by what date he anticipates reaching a decision as to the form in which he intends to lay these regulations before Parliament.

Mr. Godber: I will with permission circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a list of the organisations consulted. My right hon. Friend hopes to have their comments in time to lay Regulations in the autumn.

Following is the information:

LIST OF ORGANISATIONS TO WHICH PROPOSALS FOR AMENDING REGULATIONS WERE CIRCULATED

Association of Municipal Corporations.
The Association of Public Analysts.
Association of Public Health Inspectors.
British Dairy Farmers' Association.
British Hotels and Restaurants Association.
Caterers' Association of Great Britain.
County Councils' Association.
Ice Cream Alliance Limited.

Ice Cream Powder Manufacturers Section of Food Manufacturers' Federation.
Institute of Weights and Measures Administration.
Joint Committee of Breed Society Representatives.
Metropolitan Boroughs' Standing Joint Committee.
Milk Bars Association of Great Britain and Ireland Limited.
Milk Marketing Board.
National Association of Creamery Proprietors and Wholesale Dairymen Inc.
National Caterers Federation.
National Cattle Breeders' Association.
National Dairymen's Association.
National Farmers' Union.
National Union of Retail Confectioners.
Parliamentary Committee of the Co-operative Union.
Quality Milk Producers Limited.
Rural District Councils' Association.
United Synagogue.
Urban District Councils' Association.
Wholesale Ice Cream Federation Limited.
The British Diabetic Association.
Association of Manufacturers of Shortening and Compound Cooking Fat.
Margarine Manufacturers' Association.
British Saccharin Sales Company Limited.
British Standards Institution.

British Trawlers, Icelandic Waters

Mr. Wall: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will now make a statement on the steps he is taking to protect trawlers fishing off the Icelandic coast outside the legal limit after 1st September this year.

Mr. Godber: Discussions have taken place with the industry on the practical arrangements that would require to be carried out on the assumption that an agreed solution cannot in the meanwhile be arrived at. I would take this opportunity of repeating that Her Majesty's Government continue to hope that a reasonable solution can be achieved.

Mr. Wall: While thanking my hon. Friend for that Answer and for the reaffirmation of the promise of protection, may I ask him to continue to urge on the Icelandic Government that the only answer is to be found at the conference table and that their unilateral action is only causing a loss of friendship and distress to their N.A.T.O. Allies?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. I entirely agree with his view, on this matter. We have repeated that we should be only too glad to go to any discussions with Iceland—bilateral or regional or in a full conference—which they would be willing to attend.

Mr. Osborne: Will my hon. Friend make a further statement about this before the House rises, since we should normally be in Recess on 1st September? Will he be able to make another statement before the House is in Recess?

Mr. Godber: If there is anything further to bring forward my right hon. Friend will wish to inform the House, but at present I have no knowledge of any further news that I could give.

Mr. Awbery: In the meantime, the skippers of trawlers are in danger of being arrested and their gear confiscated by the Icelandic people. What does the Minister intends to do if this occurs? Will he protect those men or will he allow them to be imprisoned in Iceland and their gear to be confiscated?

Mr. Godber: We must be clear on this. Nothing of this kind can arise before 1st September, which is the operative date of the Icelandic decree. We have made our position abundantly clear in our declaration of 4th June, and I ask the hon. Member to read it carefully because it exactly meets the points which he has raised. I do not wish to say anything off the cuff about it, but the declaration is abundantly clear and very straightforward.

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what guidance he has given to British fishermen as to the area of the sea round Iceland within which they should not fish without armed protection.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend does not think that at this stage it would be in the public interest to disclose the detailed arrangements that are being made. I can assure the hon. and learned Member that Her Majesty's Government are maintaining close liaison with the British deep-sea fishing industry on this matter.

Mr. Hughes: Does the hon. Gentleman realise that it is essential that some guidance should be given to the skippers of long-distance trawlers who will shortly be putting to sea on long voyages? The new limits sought to be imposed by Iceland will come into operation in less than six weeks from now, on 1st September. Is not it, therefore, of the utmost importance that the skippers should know in which waters they are liable to arrest and in which waters they can fish freely?

Mr. Godber: I entirely agree that it is right and proper that the skippers should be fully informed. It would not be wise for me to give a detailed answer on this subject to the House at the moment. We are in close consultation with the owners and their representatives on this matter.

Slaughterhouses (Meat Inspection)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is satisfied with the progress of the efforts to ensure that 100 per cent. of the meat passing through slaughterhouses is inspected; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: The replies to a questionnaire recently issued by my Ministry indicate that local authorities have made considerable progress during the last eighteen months, and that as much as 90 per cent. of the meat passing through slaughterhouses is now inspected. Local authorities are to be congratulated on this encouraging rate of progress, and my right hon. Friend is satisfied that they are doing their best to maintain this progress and to raise the standard of inspection despite the great pressure on inspecting staff in many areas.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is the Minister aware that this Answer gives rise to very great satisfaction and should be a source of congratulation to all concerned, including his own Ministry?

Mr. Godber: I am most grateful.

Dr. Stross: Would the Minister also take steps to see that there is ante-mortem inspection of cattle? Is he aware that post-mortem inspection of meat alone is not sufficient to protect the public health?

Mr. Godber: I am aware of the hon. Member's feelings about this. We discussed the subject at some length during the current Session. At the moment I think we must concentrate on postmortem inspection, but I do not set that as an end to all inspection. I realise the importance of what he said.

Mr. Willey: While I appreciate the progress which has been made, may I ask whether the hon. Member recognises that 10 per cent. is still a very large amount of meat? Can he tell us what


has happened to the Slaughterhouses Bill? Is he aware that it disappeared into another place and that we have heard no more about it?

Mr. Godber: The hon. Member says that 10 per cent. is a large amount of meat. This is an increase of 10 per cent. on what I was telling him a short time ago and I take it that his reference to the 10 per cent. is as a congratulation to me. The progress of the Slaughterhouses Bill is very wide of this Question.

Farmland (Flood Damage)

Mr. G. Jeger: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food whether he will make a further statement on the flooding of farmland in Yorkshire, following the inspections by the drainage engineers.

Mr. Godber: Our officers are engaged in a survey of the crop damage in the flooded area, and when this has been completed my right hon. Friend will write to the hon. Member. As regards the cause of the floods and possible remedial measures, there is nothing I can add at this stage to the Answer given to the hon. Member by my right hon. Friend on Thursday last.

Mr. Jeger: Would the Minister see that the Departmental engineers are instructed to contact the local branches of the N.F.U., who are profoundly dissatisfied with the reply given by his right hon. Friend last week when I first raised the question? Is he aware of the contention by the N.F.U. that a far greater acreage has been flooded and far more crops have been damaged than the Minister gave credit for last week?

Mr. Godber: We are having full reports prepared, but if the N.F.U. has any evidence, we shall be very glad indeed to receive it.

Mr. T. Williams: Will the Minister satisfy the House that his Department has not withheld grants which might have helped to prevent this recent flooding from taking place?

Mr. Godber: The Question deals with an area in Yorkshire. As far as I am aware, we have withheld no grant for that area which has aggravated the problem.

Mr. Kimball: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he will consider providing extra credit facilities for farmers who have suffered damage in the recent severe flooding; and whether he will make a statement.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend has given urgent consideration to the very serious problems posed for those affected by this flooding and he is instructing my Ministry's officers in the areas affected to assist those in temporary need by providing, where they consider it justifiable, essential supplies on credit under the Agricultural Goods and Services Scheme on as favourable terms as the Scheme allows.

Mr. Kimball: Is my hon. Friend aware that, after the rather depressing Answer given last week on this subject, his reply will be very welcome in the distressed areas of Lincolnshire and Yorkshire? Is he further aware that we are very grateful to him for his personal visit at the weekend to see the damage? However, can he explain to us exactly what the farmers can get under the Goods and Services Scheme? To whom does it apply, and what rate of interest will they have to pay? Is he aware that to people who have lost all their crops even the present Bank Rate is very high?

Mr. Godber: I am grateful to my hon. Friend for his comments. The Goods and Services Scheme applies to practically all the goods which farmers require except buildings and livestock. Farmers should apply to the divisional office of my Ministry in their own areas. As to the interest terms, the present rate, I am afraid, is 7 per cent., but it is being reduced tomorrow to 6¼ per cent., and I hope that will be helpful.

Mr. T. Williams: Does what the Parliamentary Secretary has said cover farmers who have lost practically all their cereal crops, potatoes, peas and so on? Will the Goods and Services Scheme enable them to re-sow or re-plant what they have already lost or to make up for what they have lost?

Mr. Godber: The intention is to help them as far as we can. For this year it is too late to re-plant. We shall do all we possibly can to help as far as we are able to do under the Scheme.

Irish Cattle (Import)

Mr. J. Johnson: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food if he is aware of the anxiety of Warwickshire farmers regarding the existing arrangements for the importation of Irish cattle; whether he is yet satisfied with the standard of Irish attestation; and if he will make a further statement on this matter.

Mr. Godber: Pending the eradication of bovine tuberculosis from Great Britain the position is adequately safeguarded by the requirement that once-tested cattle must be isolated for a period and pass a second test before being added to attested herds. My right hon. Friend would, however, welcome the early development of a trade in attested Irish cattle. The future of the trade in Irish cattle after eradication of the disease from Great Britain is under active discussion between the authorities concerned. My right hon. Friend is aware of the concern of farmers with these matters, but he is not in a position to make a further statement at present.

Mr. Johnson: In view of the amounts that the Government spend to ensure that our own cattle are fully attested, is not it foolish to continue importing cattle which have been only once attested before coming here? Would not it be desirable to have arrangements on the Irish side comparable with those that we have here?

Mr. Godber: I entirely agree with the hon. Member. We want the Irish to speed up this matter as much as possible. We have been in negotiation with them on a number of occasions. I myself have discussed it with some of their representatives. We want the situation improved as soon as possible, but at the moment the position is safeguarded in the way indicated in my original Answer.

Sir A. Baldwin: Is my hon. Friend aware that isolation is no safeguard against T.B. and that the only safeguard is to ensure that the cattle are attested on the other side before coming to this country? Will he take steps to ensure that in due course the Irish follow the steps taken in Great Britain so that their cattle become fully T.T.?

Mr. Godber: Yes, Sir; that is exactly what we would wish. I would point out, however, that once-tested cattle are

segregated, as I have indicated, for at least sixty days. This gives reasonably satisfactory results, the number of reactors being very small—about 2·3 per cent.

Farm Improvement Grants

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food how many grants have been approved in respect of improvements under the Agriculture Act, 1957; at what estimated cost; and how many applications have been received.

Mr. Godber: Up to the end of June, 36,246 applications had been received in England and Wales; 14,483, involving 20,990 improvements at an estimated cost of about £10½ million, had been formally approved; 6,668 applications were ready for approval subject to the applicants providing satisfactory plans, specifications or tenders or signing formal documents; and 7,365 had been rejected or withdrawn. Together, therefore, nearly 80 per cent. of the applications had been dealt with and a good number of the remainder have been inspected and will be dealt with shortly.

Mr. Willey: I am obliged to the hon. Gentleman for his statement. Can he say how far this is in accord with the Departmental Estimates for this year? Can he also say whether he has sufficient information to confirm or deny that the scheme is working to the prejudice of the small farmer—that the small farmer is not taking Sufficient advantage of it?

Mr. Godber: On the first point, it was very difficult to estimate, but we think it is roughly falling in line with what we expected. In the last month or two there has been an increase in the number of applications. This has probably been attributable to the fact that we now have standard costs, which particularly help small farmers. Standard costs are a real help to the small farmer because he can include his own labour. Initially, the applications came largely from the larger farmers, probably because it was easier for them to get their specifications in, but we are now getting a considerable number from small farmers. The figures are improving.

Mr. J. E. B. Hill: Can my hon. Friend say what the present average delay is


between an application being made by the farmer and the first visit from a representative of the Ministry, and whether he hopes to be able to keep the delay within reasonable bounds?

Mr. Godber: So that I might give my hon. Friend a really accurate figure, I should be grateful if he would put a Question to that effect on the Order Paper. We are trying to keep the delay as short as possible, but increasing numbers of applicants in the last two months have perhaps added a little to the inevitable delay.

Agricultural Rents (Survey)

Mr. Willey: asked the Minister of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food what progress the Department of Estate Management at Cambridge has made with its report on agricultural rents.

Mr. Godber: My right hon. Friend is informed that the results of the Department of Estate Management's survey are being tabulated and that it hopes to publish its report before the end of the year.

Mr. Willey: In view of this statement and the wholesale opposition in the farming community to the rent provisions of the present Bill, will the Government even at this late stage withdraw those provisions?

Mr. Godber: The answer is "No, Sir".

Oral Answers to Questions — HOME DEPARTMENT

Gaming Laws

Mr. Dodds: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department, in view of the widespread dissatisfaction with the gaming laws, what consideration has been given to making alterations, and what decisions reached; and what action is likely in the near future to deal with the present situation.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Mr. David Renton): My right hon. Friend has no plans for the introduction of legislation on this subject in the present Session of Parliament.

Mr. Dodds: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman answer the Question, which asks what consideration has been given and what decisions have been reached?

Although the hon. and learned Gentleman states that he has no proposals for this Session, will he please give some information in view of the fantastic situation about what consideration has been given and what decisions have been reached?

Mr. Renton: A great deal of consideration has been given to the Report of the Royal Commission on this subject, but it would be wrong for me to state what decisions have been reached in advance of any possible legislation. It would be very extensive legislation, and it would be wrong for me to raise the hon. Gentleman's hopes about when it could be fitted into a legislative programme.

Albert Edward Matheson (Sentence)

Sir J. Hutchison: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what is the maximum remission of sentence which could be earned under his rules by Albert Edward Matheson as a deduction from the sentence of 20 years' imprisonment recently passed on him.

Mr. Renton: A prisoner may by good conduct and industry earn remission of one-third of his sentence, which on a sentence of 20 years would be 6 years and 8 months. Matheson has, however, been certified as a moral defective and has been removed to Rampton Hospital. The effect of this is that he will not be eligible for remission and that he cannot be discharged during the currency of his sentence, that is until 1978, without the Secretary of State's consent.

Sir J. Hutchison: Does my hon. and learned Friend realise that the knowledge that a man described by the Lord Chief Justice as "a monster" will not again be at liberty at the end of about 13 years will bring considerable relief to an anxious public?

Long Lane, Birmingham (School Crossing Patrol)

Mr. Moyle: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will place a warden-controlled crossing in Long Lane, Blackheath, Birmingham, in the vicinity of the Feldon Lane Junction, and thus avoid the risk of accidents to which the children of the Olive Hill and Hill Top Primary Schools are now exposed in going to and from school.

The Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department (Miss Patricia Hornsby-Smith): Under the School Crossing Patrols Act, 1953, it is for the appropriate local authority to decide what arrangements, if any, shall be made for patrolling school crossings.

Mr. Moyle: Having regard to the terms of the Minister's reply to me on 26th June, can the Joint Under-Secretary advise me as to the circumstances which would justify the intervention of her right hon. Friend in such a matter? Am I to understand that there must first be a road accident or, possibly, a fatality at this point before the Home Department can intervene?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The hon. Member would, I think, agree that in a purely local matter of this kind, the local authority is the proper body to assess the need for such a crossing. It would not be practicable for the Home Department to intervene in matters which are so essentially a question for local knowledge and decision.

Mr. Moyle: Assuming for the moment that the local authority refuses to accede to the representations made by parents and local organisations, am I to understand that if people felt strongly about the matter it would be possible for the Home Secretary to intervene and investigate it further?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend is always prepared to consider representations made to him, but, as he has replied to the hon. Member, he feels that this is a matter for local decision.

Air Guns and Pistols (Accidents)

Mr. Skeffington: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the increasing number of accidents caused by children's air guns and air pistols; and what action he proposes to take in the light of new evidence submitted to him by the hon. Member for Hayes and Harlington.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: My right hon. Friend has no evidence of any increase in the number of such accidents. The documents forwarded by the hon. Member do not in his view indicate the need for any action on his part.

Mr. Skeffington: Is the Minister aware that that is a very unsatisfactory and disappointing reply, certainly concerning

the area which I and one or two other hon. Members represent in Middlesex? There has been an increase in accidents which has shown itself, not only in injuries, sometimes very cruel to domestic pets and to wild life, but also to a number of adults and juveniles. I have already submitted details to the hon. Lady's Department. What evidence have we to supply? Must we wait until somebody gets killed, as is quite possible?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Although allegations have often been made that the number of accidents from this cause is increasing, inquiries have been made through the Ministry of Health and the appropriate eye hospitals and there is no evidence that the number of injuries has increased since the Departmental Committee, on whose recommendations the existing law is based, examined the situation in 1934. The hon. Member will be aware that the existing law prohibits the purchase or hire of air guns by persons under the age of 17, the intention being to secure the prohibition of sales, but not gifts, and that children shall not obtain air guns without the knowledge and consent of their parents or guardians.

Mrs. Braddock: Is the hon. Lady aware that a parent can buy an air gun and hand it over to a child, of any age? Will she ask her Department to consider including in the yearly reports which are submitted to this House a special column giving the number of accidents known to the police resulting from the use of air guns? Is the hon. Lady aware that only a small alteration in the Firearms Act is needed to include air guns in the Regulations?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will certainly bring the points that the hon. Lady has made to the attention of my right hon. Friend. Under the Firearms Act, the Secretary of State has power to declare a type of gun to be specially dangerous, but it has not been felt that air guns as such have exceeded the maximum permissible level of power or should be included within that legislation.

Licensing Magistrates (Pamphlet)

Mr. D. Griffiths: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether, when he next circularises licensing magistrates, he will correct the misleading impression that a pamphlet,


entitled "The Licensing Magistrates," a copy of which has been sent to him, which states that it is issued to assist members of licensing committees in their important task and edited by a barrister-at-law, is issued with his authority.

Mr. Renton: This pamphlet, which is published by the United Kingdom Alliance., contains nothing, so far as I can see, to give rise to an impression that it is issued with my right hon. Friend's authority. He does not therefore think that any action on his part is called for.

Mr. Griffiths: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that this document has been sent to licensing magistrates throughout England and Wales? Is he aware that on the back page the words "judicial dicta" are an inference and, possibly, an implication to licensing magistrates that the document is of an authoritative nature from either the Government or the Home Office? Might not this indication lead magistrates away from their judicial responsibilities and duties?

Mr. Renton: This pamphlet was written by an anonymous barrister who advocates temperance and disagrees with one of my speeches, but none of these factors need give rise for any concern. If it helps the hon. Member, I emphatically say that the pamphlet was not issued with the authority of the Home Office.

Stag Hunting

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what reply he proposes to send to the letter he has received from Mr. Russell W. Fuller, the United States school-teacher, who filmed the final episodes in the hunting of a stag.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend has thanked Mr. Fuller for the trouble which he took to set out so fully what he saw, and has told him that he cannot add to the replies that he gave to the hon. Member on 15th May or to the Report of the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals.

Mr. Rankin: Do the hon. and learned Gentleman and his right hon. Friend realise that the forces employed in hunting this animal were mechanised, were mounted and were on foot? Do they realise that nearly fifty people were employed, and how do they justify this

wastage of human effort? Is it realised that as a result of this combined operation, the deer population was reduced by one stag? Cannot the hon. and learned Gentleman think of a less savage way of controlling the deer?

Mr. Renton: I certainly do not accept everything that the hon. Member has said in his supplementary question. The stag happened to attempt to jump a wire fence, which it failed to do, and instead of turning at bay, which is what generally happens, the stag was caught by the hounds. As the Committee on Cruelty to Wild Animals said, some suffering is involved in deer hunting. The Committee added, however, that this was no greater than would be involved in any other practicable method of control.

Mr. Rankin: Does the Minister realise that the stag failed to jump the fence because it had been hunted so long that it was completely exhausted?

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: Can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether he and his right hon. Friend have open minds on the subject of whether further legislation for the protection of deer may be necessary?

Mr. Renton: We always keep open minds on all matters, but, as my right hon. Friend has made perfectly clear on several occasions previously, and as I wish to repeat, a Committee which reported on this matter went into it thoroughly and carefully, and we accept its conclusions.

Persomnia

Mr. Rankin: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if the Poisons Board has yet submitted its report to him in regard to persomnia; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: I would refer the hon. Member to the reply which my right hon. Friend gave on 9th July to my hon. Friend the Member for Gosport and Fareham (Dr. Bennett).

Mr. Rankin: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman thank his right hon. Friend for being so courteous as to send me a copy of that reply, which is an admirable practice which, I hope, will be continued as necessary? May I take it that his reference to the Committee on drug addiction and the further action concerning


this drug means that all the other drugs in the same category will now be investigated as to their qualities?

Mr. Renton: I cannot say without notice.

Murder and Crimes of Violence (Punishment)

Sir T. Moore: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether his attention has been drawn to the expression of opinion by three recent women's conferences demanding the restoration of corporal punishment for crimes of violence and capital punishment for all crimes of murder; and whether, in these circumstances, he will now consider giving statutory effect to the prevalent demand for such action.

Mr. Renton: As my hon. Friend was told on 8th May, the number of crimes of murder known to the police in the six months September, 1957–March, 1958, was lower than the number for a comparable period before the passing of the Homicide Act. My right hon. Friend is watching the figures carefully, but they give no ground for thinking that we should amend the Act so recently passed by Parliament. He would not feel justfied in reintroducing corporal punishment unless he thought that it would be an especially effective deterrent. The Departmental Committee which examined this subject thoroughly before the war found no evidence that it was so.

Sir T. Moore: While fully appreciating the views of the Home Secretary on this matter, may I ask my hon. and learned Friend whether he realises that the British people, reading day after day of another case of a young girl or child or old person being murdered, mutilated or merely battered, will not tolerate much further delay, even though there is an open mind on the subject, and will demand action now? The figures quoted by my hon. and learned Friend are not convincing.

Mr. Lipton: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman convey the thanks of enlightened opinion to his colleague the Joint Under-Secretary of State for the Home Department for her vigorous handling of one of the more bloodthirsty of the conferences referred to in this Question? Is the hon. and learned

Gentleman aware that his colleague's effective reply to the Conservative Women's Conference is widely appreciated?

Motor Cars, London (Obstruction)

Sir F. Medlicott: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is aware of the disproportionate amount of obstruction and inconvenience caused in London by motorists who park their cars at or near corners and pedestrian crossings; and if he will ensure that the Metropolitan Police authorities are given the fullest support in their endeavours to remove or lessen this form of nuisance.

Mr. Renton: It is an offence to park a car inside the line of studs on the approach to a pedestrian crossing and cars so parked may be removed from the roads under the appropriate regulations. The regulations also empower the police to remove any car which is parked so near a road junction as to interfere with the passage of other vehicles at or near the junction.

Sir F. Medlicott: Is my hon. and learned Friend aware that fines have very litle effect on a small minority of motorists who behave in this rather inconsiderate way? Is he aware that this power of removing obstructing vehicles is a most useful innovation which should be used wherever possible?

Mr. Renton: I entirely agree with my hon. Friend. The Metropolitan Police have made good use of this power.

Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament (Police Photographers)

Mr. Frank Allaun: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department on what grounds and for what purpose Metropolitan Police photographers are taking photographs of marchers taking part in the Campaign for Nuclear Disarmament; and if this is done with his approval.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is informed by the Commissioner of Police of the Metropolis that he has no knowledge of any such photographs being taken by the police.

Mr. Allaun: But is the Minister aware that this has occurred recently in Salford, Bradford, Middlesbrough, Warrington


and other towns, and that in two cases the chief constable has now admitted it? Will the Minister tell the House the purpose of these photographs; and, since this appears to be an interference with civil liberties on a national scale, will he ask his right hon. Friend to seek Parliamentary powers to stop it?

Mr. Renton: This Question relates to the work of the Metropolitan Police and the supplementary question relates to the work of the provincial police, for whom my right hon. Friend cannot answer in this House.

Mr. Osborne: rose—

Mr. Anthony Greenwood: While appreciating the reasons given by the hon. and learned Gentleman, nevertheless the facts to which my hon. Friend has referred have caused a great deal of disquiet in various parts of the country. Can the Joint Under-Secretary consider discussing this matter at his next conference with the chief constables?

Fun Fairs (Obscene Photographs)

Mr. J. Hynd: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will introduce legislation to protect young children from being presented with obscene photographs as prizes for children's games at fun fairs.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: If the photographs come within the present legal definition of obscenity, action can be taken under the existing law. If they do not, I can only say that any attempt to extend the definition would be difficult and controversial.

Mr. Hynd: I should have imagined that the hon. Lady would be aware that these photographs have been sent to her right hon. Friend. The Question has been put because I want to know whether or not action can be taken under existing law, and if not, whether some action will be taken to amend the law because of the fact that these photographs are not just obscene photographs, but are presented to young children under the guise of children's toys in a packet designed for that purpose. Will the Minister look into this question, which is causing great consternation, because these photographs are being distributed wholesale to children in Southend?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: We will certainly look into the point made by the hon. Gentleman, but I think he will appreciate the difficulty of classifying nude portraits or photographs as automatically obscene.

Mobile Shops (Closing Hours)

Mr. Page: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he will initiate legislation to bring the mobile shop within the same restrictions as to closing hours as those to which the ordinary retail shop is subjected.

Mr. Renton: I regret that I cannot add to the Answer that my right hon. Friend gave on 26th June to a Question by the hon. Member for Ogmore (Mr. Padley).

Mr. Page: Would not my hon. and learned Friend agree that this is particularly unfair on the ordinary retail shop, and does not he think it should be remedied at an early date?

Mr. Renton: This is not an easy matter to remedy. It would involve a considerable amendment of the shops legislation, and in any event it is doubtful whether this point should be taken on its own.

Mrs. Slater: But does not the hon. Gentleman realise that this is contrary to what is laid down in the Shops Act, and it gives no protection to retailers who have to comply with the Shops Act, whereas the mobile shops can at any time, even on a Sunday, sell goods on housing estates?

Mr. Renton: The hon. Lady's supplementary question shows that this is also a controversial matter.

Commonwealth and Colonial Immigrants

Mr. N. Pannell: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will arrange for the classification by countries of origin of immigrants from the Commonwealth and Colonies and of such immigrants that return to their own countries.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The whole question of the compilation of statistics of migration between this country and other countries—including the countries of the Commonwealth—is still under examination.

Mr. Pannell: Does not my hon. Friend agree that the present situation is most unsatisfactory, and in view of the growing gravity of this problem and the repeated assurances of her Department that the situation is being carefully watched, does not she think it essential that factual information should be obtained without delay so that the situation can be watched with an informed eye?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: The purpose of the examination now proceeding is to acquire the factual information for which my hon. Friend asks.

Isle of Man Constitution (Commission)

Mr. Hector Hughes: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he will state the terms of reference of the Commission recently appointed to inquire into the Constitution of the Isle of Man, and its personnel; when, and where, it will hold its first sitting; whether it will make an interim report; and when its final report may be expected.

Mr. Renton: The Lieutenant Governor of the Isle of Man has appointed a Commission to
inquire into and report upon the Constitution of the Isle of Man and its working and to make recommendations for any changes that they may consider desirable or practicable".
The Chairman is Lord MacDermott, and the other members are the right hon. Gentleman the Member for South Shields (Mr. Ede), my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Chertsey (Sir L. Heald), Sir Frederick Armer and Sir Francis Mudie. The last three parts of the Question are matters for the Commission.

Mr. Hughes: May I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if the various interests concerned will be represented?

Mr. Renton: I am sorry. I cannot answer that question without notice.

Esthonian Seaman (Refuge)

Mr. Grimond: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department what has become of the Esthonian seaman who landed on Shetland; and if he will make a statement.

Miss Hornsby-Smith: Having considered reports by immigration officers of

their interrogation of this seaman my right hon. Friend has decided to allow him to remain in this country. He has accordingly been released from detention and formally granted leave to land in the United Kingdom.

Mr. Grimond: While thanking the hon. Lady for that Answer and the decision, may I ask her if she will represent to her right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Foreign Affairs that, in view of the fact that this man appears to be a genuine political refugee, he might press rather strongly for some answer to the protests made against the Russian landing?

Miss Hornsby-Smith: I will bring the comment of the hon. Member to the attention of my right hon. Friend.

Parking Places (Motor Car Keys)

Mr. Gresham Cooke: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many police constables will be responsible for keeping sets of motor car keys to be used for the driving away of vehicles from parking places under Article 19 of the Parking Places (Westminster) (No. 1) Order, 1958.

Mr. Renton: There will be no special sets of keys to be used for the purpose of action under this Article, which authorises the police to take action only in emergency.

Mr. Gresham Cooke: While it is correct for the police to have keys in their safe custody for this purpose, will my hon. and learned Friend give an assurance that these keys will not be made available to the parking attendants in Grosvenor Square?

Mr. Renton: Yes, Sir, I can give that assurance.

Oral Answers to Questions — PRISONS

Preventive Detention

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department how many prisoners over the ages of 70 and 75 years, respectively, are serving sentences of preventive detention in Her Majesty's prisons.

Mr. Renton: On the 9th July, 1958, there were in the central preventive detention prisons 15 prisoners over the age of 70 years, of whom 5 were over 75.

Mr. Yates: Is the Minister aware that about two weeks ago a man aged 78 was sentenced to seven years' preventive detention for stealing three coats from a car? An appeal was made because of the man's state of health and the fact that he was likely to die very soon. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman consider whether it is reasonable to condemn these aged persons to prison for the rest of their natural lives?

Mr. Renton: They are, of course, a very small proportion of the total number of prisoners sentenced to preventive detention. We have to face the fact that in some of these cases it may well be the best solution for the prisoners themselves, but if the hon. Member has particularly in mind the case of this man aged 78, and he cares to let me have full details of it, I will make sure that it is carefully looked into.

Mr. Yates: I thank the hon. and learned Gentleman.

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he has yet completed his review of the system of preventive detention; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend is still awaiting the completion of the research projects to which he referred in replying to the hon. Member on 6th February. He will initiate a review of the system as soon as possible thereafter.

Mr. Yates: While I appreciate the fact that the inquiry is still going on, may I ask whether, in view of the fact that this system has been in operation for ten years, the hon. and learned Gentleman agrees that it is reasonable that we should have some considered review in the very near future? How long must we wait?

Mr. Renton: It is because it has been in operation for nearly ten years that my right hon. Friend is proposing to review the position, but he does not want to do that until he has at his hand all the factual evidence that will be provided by the surveys.

Sentenced Persons, Carlisle (Borstal Training)

Dr. D. Johnson: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department whether he is aware that Allen Tyson, age 19 years, 25 Ashley Street, Carlisle, and Alfred Veevers, age 17 years, 141, Tomlinson Avenue, Carlisle, who were sentenced to a period of Borstal training at the recent Carlisle Quarter Sessions, have now been kept as prisoners in Durham Gaol for six weeks; and when the training for which they were recommended on their sentences will commence.

Mr. Renton: The answer to the first part of the Question is "Yes, Sir." They will go to a Borstal reception centre within the next two months and may remain there for five weeks before proceeding to a training Borstal.

Dr. Johnson: May I thank my hon. and learned Friend for his reply and ask him whether he is aware of the anxiety felt by parents in these cases where there is delay in gaols? Is he aware of their anxiety that these young boys come into contact with hardened criminals during their stay? Will he look at these cases very carefully?

Mr. Renton: indicated assent.

Prisoner, Cardiff (Injury)

Mr. V. Yates: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department in what circumstances Mr. T. McFarlane, of Birmingham, at present serving a sentence in Her Majesty's Prison, Cardiff, received an injury to his head necessitating treatment by a hospital officer; for what reasons this man was put in a punishment cell and stripped naked; and if he will make a statement.

Mr. Renton: I will, with permission, circulate in the OFFICIAL REPORT a statement about this case.

Mr. Yates: In view of the criticisms which have been levelled against this prison on a number of occasions, can the hon. and learned Gentleman say whether this statement, which he is circulating, is the result of any special inquiry that has taken place into this case? Will he consider why a prisoner who was under medical treatment was not allowed to report sick? Is he aware that as a result of this struggle the man definitely was


injured and says that he was marched to his cell and stripped before any charge was made?

Mr. Renton: When the hon. Member has a chance to study this statement he will find that his fears about what he thinks happened are unjustified. As to making an inquiry, the Visiting Committee, which is an independent body, has already inquired into McFarlane's allegations and has found no evidence to substantiate them. My right hon. Friend can see no ground for any further inquiry.

The statement is as follows:
On 22nd March McFarlane stopped at the entrance to the prison workshop, and refused to work. He was twice ordered by the escorting officer to go to work and cautioned, but he persisted in refusing; he then said he wanted to report sick. He refused to go to his cell and wait for the doctor to come and see him and started shouting and became violent. With considerable difficulty he was forcibly removed to a strong cell. During the struggle caused by his violent reistance he fell to the floor. When in the strong cell McFarlane said that he had struck his head on an iron gate. He repeated this explanation to the hospital officer who attended him shortly afterwards. He incurred a minor cut on his head about an inch long and not serious enough to need stitching. While in the strong cell his clothing was removed and searched but at no time was he left wholly naked. McFarlane made no complaint when he appeared before the Governor but he later complained to the Visiting Committee and alleged that he was struck with a stave by one of the officers. The Committee heard evidence from McFarlane, another prisoner who claimed to have witnessed the incident and the officers concerned and decided that his complaint was not substantiated.

Prisoners (Letters to Members)

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department when he will announce the new standing orders relating to letters sent by prisoners to Members of Parliament; and what are the principal changes he is considering.

Mr. Renton: A revised standing order on this subject will be issued shortly and my right hon. Friend will place a copy of it in the Library of the House. The new order allows some relaxation of the restrictions on the subject matter of prisoners' letters. Prisoners will also in future be permitted to request any hon. Member to visit them but not to enclose a visiting order. If the Member wishes to accept such an invitation my right hon. Friend will be glad to authorise a visit.

Mr. Collins: While welcoming that reply, may I ask the hon. and learned Gentleman if he is aware that an urgent letter from my constituent, Collier, then under sentence of death, took six days to reach me? Is he aware that the prison authorities said that this was because it had been held back pending sanction by the Commissioner before it was posted? Is not it intolerable that even in matters of life and death an anonymous civil servant should decide whether a man should write to a Member of Parliament? Will the new regulations avoid a scandal of this kind and provide reasonable freedom for men to write without interference to their Members of Parliament?

Mr. Renton: I am sure that the hon. Member appreciates that prisoners' letters, even to Members of Parliament, have to be censored—[HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"]—and it is not possible for us to make a change in that respect. As to a particular case, if the hon. Member cares to let me know more fully about it, I should be glad to look into it.

Mr. Collins: Is the hon. and learned Gentleman aware that I received the letter on a Wednesday, delayed six days, and that the man was due to be hanged on the following Tuesday but was reprieved on the Friday? Is he aware that the letter was kept back only because of a stupid, harsh rule and that as a result of delay the man might now be dead? Surely that kind of thing is utterly wrong and indefensible. Will the hon. and learned Gentleman approach his right hon. Friend on the matter?

Mr. Renton: It seems to me from what the hon. Member has said that the matter was dealt with very promptly eventually.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Could the hon. and learned Gentleman say why letters to Members of Parliament have to be censored?

Mr. Renton: There are two reasons. One is that they may contain complaints on prison treatment not previously ventilated through the usual channels. [HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."] It is right that they should be so ventilated in the first place. [HON. MEMBERS: "Why?"] The other reason is that the letters may contain objectionable matter which prisoners are not allowed to send out of prison.

Mr. Gordon Walker: Will the hon. and learned Gentleman ask his right hon.


Friend to look at this matter again? Is he aware that neither reason seems satisfactory and that both would apply to letters from soldiers which are not censored? Will the Home Office look into this again?

Mr. Renton: Soldiers are in a position entirely different from that of men who are detained in prison.

Overcrowding

Mr. Collins: asked the Secretary of State for the Home Department if he is yet in a position to announce his proposals for reducing overcrowding in local prisons by reducing the time spent in stage I by preventive detainees.

Mr. Renton: My right hon. Friend has decided to transfer from local prisons to Parkhurst as many prisoners in the first stage of preventive detention as can be accommodated there, but he does not propose to reduce the time they will spend in first stage.

Mr. Collins: But does the hon. and learned Gentleman realise that many of these detainees are sweltering three to a cell whereas at Parkhurst there are 138 empty cells and there are empty cells at other prisons? Is the difficulty that he cannot get the Commissioners to change, and if that is so, will he suggest to his right hon. Friend that he should change the Commissioners and get something done?

Mr. Renton: I am afraid that the hon. Member has mistaken the position. Men are being transferred from local prisons to Parkhurst, as I said in my original Answer.

Mr. Woodburn: Is not it a mistake to treat all prisoners as if they were dangerous to the community? There are all types of prisoners. Could not those who are in prison for civil offences be put on farms and given work to do and not be kept in cells, thus unnecessarily burdening the security arrangements?

Mr. Renton: That raises a quite different question.

GENERAL ELECTION (TELEVISION BROADCASTS)

Mr. Dodds: asked the Prime Minister what discussions have taken place and what decisions reached in

respect of television playing a bigger part in election proceedings during the three weeks prior to the next General Election, apart from official party broadcasts, than was the case prior to the last General Election.

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): I have been asked to reply.
No discussions have yet taken place but I understand that the matter is under consideration by all those concerned.

Mr. Dodds: Does not the right hon. Gentleman think it is essential that these discussions should be expedited, as the future is uncertain and a General Election may come at any time? Also, will he bear in mind that many people find it difficult to understand why the Press should have a licence to give its news and views in the most partisan manner and why television, which could be the greatest medium for bringing our Parliamentary system to the masses, has for so long been in a straitjacket?

Mr. Butler: The hon. Gentleman can rest assured that we are contemplating early discussions on these matters, as the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition knows, and we are not neglecting them.

BRITISH FORCES (WESTERN ADEN PROTECTORATE)

Mr. Braine: asked the Prime Minister when a decision will be announced in regard to the award of a suitable medal to members of the forces who have been engaged on operations in the Western Aden Protectorate during the last few years.

Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
This question is reviewed from time to time and will be reviewed again before the end of the year. Individual acts of gallantry already receive appropriate recognition.

Mr. Braine: While not wishing to press my right hon. Friend on this question at the moment, would he bear in mind that small numbers of our forces have been engaged in operations now for a number of years, and that, if awards for gallantry have to be given, it would seem only


appropriate that some feasible mark of recognition should be given to all ranks engaged?

Mr. Butler: Yes, Sir. I will discuss this with my right hon. Friend.

Mr. P. Noel-Baker: While supporting the suggestion of the hon. Gentleman that gallant men who have done their duty should receive proper recognition, may I ask the right hon. Gentleman if he will consider publishing a White Paper giving us a complete picture of the operations in which British Forces have been engaged in the Arabian Peninsula, beginning, for example, in the early summer of 1955 when two officers were killed in action?

Mr. Butler: Any suggestions made by the right hon. Gentleman will receive our consideration but I cannot give him an answer today.

NUCLEAR POWER STATIONS (FUEL)

Sir P. Roberts: asked the Prime Minister what further action Her Majesty's Government proposes to take to ensure that the Euratom Commission, through the Euratom agency, will guarantee to buy British nuclear fuel in the event of the purchase of British nuclear power stations to be erected in any of the Euratom Treaty countries.

Mr. Butler: I have been asked to reply.
The agreement under negotiation with the Euratom Commission is likely to contain similar provisions to those in the agreement between Her Majesty's Government and the Italian Government, which provides for the supply of fuel by the United Kingdom and for assistance in the manufacture of fuel elements in Italy in due course.
The rôle of the Euratom supply agency is one of the points to be taken into account in our negotiations with the Euratom Commission. The Commission has assured us that it does not intend to impose any obstacles to the development of nuclear power in its member countries, which it is its object to promote by all possible means.

Sir P. Roberts: While being grateful to my right hon. Friend for that reply which I think, as far as I can follow it, is a satisfactory one, may I ask him

whether Her Majesty's Government propose to have a closer technical association with the Euratom Commission?

Mr. Butler: I am glad that my hon. Friend's apprehension is so acute and I hope our contact will be close.

Mr. Stonehouse: What guarantee will there be in the agreement that military plutonium to be extracted will be returned here?

Mr. Butler: I should want notice of that question.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Mr. Gaitskell: May I ask the Leader of the House whether he will state the business for next week?

The Secretary of State for the Home Department and Lord Privy Seal (Mr. R. A. Butler): Yes, Sir.

The business for next week will be as follows:

MONDAY, 21ST JULY—Supply [23rd Allotted Day]: Committee.

The subject for debate will be announced later.

Consideration of the Motion relating to the Greenwich Hospital and Travers' Foundation Accounts; and of the Motion to approve the Import Duties (Exemptions) (No. 13) Order.

TUESDAY, 22ND JULY—Supply [24th Allotted Day]: Committee.

The subject for debate will be announced later.

Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Local Government Bill.

Motions to approve the Draft Local Government Superannuation (Benefits) (New Towns Staffs) Regulations, and similar Regulations for Scotland.

WEDNESDAY, 23RD JULY—Consideration of the Lords Amendments to the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill, which are expected to be received from another place today; to the Park Lane Improvement Bill; and to the Merchant Shipping (Liability of Shipowners and Others) Bill—a Private Members' Bill for which we propose to give facilities.

Consideration of the Motions to approve the Herring and White Fish Subsidy (United Kingdom) Schemes.

At 7 o'clock Opposed Private Business has been set down for consideration by the Chairman of Ways and Means.

THURSDAY, 24TH JULY—Supply [25th Allotted Day]: Committee.

Debate on Education in Scotland.

At 9.30 p.m. the Question will be put from the Chair on the Vote under discussion and on all outstanding Supply Votes.

Motions to approve the Draft Pneumoconiosis and Byssinosis Benefit Amendment Scheme; and the Draft National Insurance (Industrial Injuries) (Colliery Workers Supplementary Scheme) Amendment Order.

FRIDAY, 25TH JULY—Report and Third Reading of the Tribunals and Inquiries Bill [Lords]; the Children Bill [Lords]; and the Water Bill [Lords].

Perhaps, Mr. Speaker, I may also mention that tomorrow, Friday, after the Third Reading of the Finance Bill, we hope that there will be an opportunity to consider the Lords Amendments to the Divorce (Insanity and Desertion) Bill; and the Variation of Trusts Bill; and also the Second Reading of the Licensing of Bulls and Boars Bill [Lords], which have come from another place.

These are Private Members' Bills and the Government have decided to facilitate their progress.

Mr. Gaitskell: It will be generally understood that in the present situation any statement on business must be rather provisional. It was for that reason that we thought it wise not to decide here and now what subjects should be debated on Monday and Tuesday of next week.

Mr. Woodburn: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that the Local Government and Miscellaneous Financial Provisions (Scotland) Bill has been so long in the Lords that it has become completely different from the Bill sent there from this House? As we have not had an opportunity of considering the entirely new aspects of the Bill, will the right hon.

Gentleman consider having it introduced in another form so that the House may have a full opportunity to discuss those new aspects?

Mr. Butler: No, Sir. I think that the right hon. Gentleman and his hon. Friends will be sufficiently able to apprehend the Lords Amendments and to deal with them.

JORDAN

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I will make a statement on the situation in Jordan.
Within a matter of minutes after the end of the debate yesterday I was given a telegram from Her Majesty's Representative in Jordan. This contained the first news that we had had that King Hussein and the Prime Minister of Jordan had made a request for the immediate despatch of British forces to Jordan.
In making this request, the King and the Prime Minister said that Jordan was faced with an imminent attempt by the United Arab Republic to create internal disorder and to overthrow the present régime, on the pattern of recent events in Iraq.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Are we expected to believe that?

The Prime Minister: They went on to say that Jordan's territorial integrity was threatened by the movement of Syrian forces towards her northern frontier and by the infiltration of arms across it. They had information that a coup organised by the United Arab Republic would be attempted today.
I asked the Cabinet to meet late last night to consider this request.
From our own sources we had received up to date intelligence which clearly showed that the apprehensions of the Jordan Government were well founded, and that an attempt was indeed being organised for today.
The Government accordingly decided to accede to the request, and British forces are, in fact, being sent by air to Jordan from Cyprus.
The purpose of this military assistance is to stabilise the situation in Jordan by helping the Jordanian Government to


resist aggression and threats to the integrity and independence of their country.
Our troops will be under the orders of the local British commander who will act with the agreement of the King and Government of Jordan.
The Jordan Government have made a similar request for help to the United States Government, who are considering it urgently in the light of their other commitments in the area. Her Majesty's Government's decision was taken after full consultation with the United States Government, and our action has the full support and approval of the United States Government.
The decision of Her Majesty's Government is being reported to the United Nations, and we are making it clear to the United Nations that if arrangements can be made by the Security Council to protect the lawful Government of Jordan from the external threat, and so maintain international peace and security, the action which we have taken will be brought to an end.
We have informed the other Commonwealth countries, and also the North Atlantic Treaty Organisation Council, of the action we have taken and the reasons which have led to the Government's decision.
I have deliberately limited my statement to an objective account of the facts. I appreciated that there would be a desire for a debate and arrangements have been made through the usual channels to bring the debate on the British Transport Commission to an end at 7 o'clock tonight, when the Government will move the Adjournment of the House and a debate can take place.
In view of this, I hope that hon. Members will reserve matters of argument until the debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: The Prime Minister has made an exceedingly serious statement touching on matters on which we expressed certain fears and gave certain warnings yesterday evening. I would have been disposed, in any event, to have moved the Adjournment of the House under Standing Order No. 9, but the arrangement proposed by the Prime Minister is perfectly satisfactory to us, that is, that there should be a debate at 7 o'clock this evening. I agree with him

that in those circumstances it would be wiser not to have too many ragged supplementary questions. I think that the argument can take place far better in the course of a debate than it can at the course of exchanges now.
However, there are one or two factual questions which, nevertheless, I wish to put to the Prime Minister now. The first is whether the Government of Jordan has itself appealed to the United Nations. The second is whether King Hussein made his appeal to us, and, for that matter, if it was made, to the United Nations, as King of Jordan or as King of Jordan and Iraq, the Federation. The third question is whether the Prime Minister can say whether we have given King Hussein any assurance that we will assist him should he try to reassert his authority over Jordan and Iraq.

The Prime Minister: The right hon. Gentleman's first question related to the United Nations and the Security Council. Of course, as the right hon. Gentleman knows, the timing is a little different, but I understand that both the statements and the appeal of the King of Jordan and the statement of the British Government will be put before the Security Council this afternoon.

Mr. Gaitskell: May we take it that King Hussein has appealed to the United Nations?

The Prime Minister: Yes, and I think that it will be taken this afternoon.
With regard to the right hon. Gentleman's second question, as far as I know it will be in his title as King of Jordan.
As to the right hon. Gentleman's third question, we have, of course, made it perfectly clear that the sole purpose of the military forces that we have sent is to secure the stability of the Government against external aggression or against a coup so created, and we have made it perfectly clear that that is the sole rôle that such a force would either be allowed to undertake or would be capable of undertaking.

Mr. S. Silverman: On a point of order. In view of the fact that the Prime Minister has quoted from a telegram, may I take it that now, under the rules of the House, the telegram will be tabled?

Mr. Speaker: I did not hear the right hon. Gentleman quote from a telegram. I think that he paraphrased its contents—which is quite a different thing.

Mr. Silverman: Further to that point of order. There are various matters which are relevant here, and the Prime Minister quite clearly told the House the contents of the telegram as, indeed, he was right and bound to do. I think that that is fairly covered by the word "quotation." We need the document so that we can satisfy ourselves about the very important question of the timing of the telegram.

Mr. Speaker: That is quite a different matter. The rule does not apply to a statement which merely paraphrases the contents of a document received. The purpose of the rule is that when only part of a document is quoted verbatim the House should have the whole document, so that it can read that part which was quoted within the context of the original script. That does not arise in this case.

Mr. Shinwell: May I ask the right hon. Gentleman a question in relation to his statement that a reference has been made to the United Nations on behalf of the British Government and—according to the right hon. Gentleman's statement—simultaneously by the Jordan Government? Can he say when those submissions are likely to be decided upon by the United Nations? Will it be soon? Is it likely to take place within the next 24 hours? Further, assuming that the United Nations rejects the submission of the British and Jordan Governments, what would be the attitude of our Government?

The Prime Minister: The Security Council is sitting this afternoon and therefore, together with the other subjects, this appeal by the Government of Jordan and the statements and appeal by the British Government will, I hope, be part of its agenda. They will certainly be published in the ordinary way as part of the agenda of the Security Council. As for the attitude that the Security Council may take in this matter, that is a hypothetical question. We must wait and see.

Mr. Bevan: Is it intended that the telegram from King Hussein will be placed before the Security Council?

The Prime Minister: No, Sir. King Hussein's appeal will be couched in his own language. I have merely said that I have received this information and that we will go through all this in the debate. But I felt that the matter was so urgent that I had to make an answer, yes or no. I had to judge—and I must ultimately rely, with my colleagues who have already had a long meeting with me, on the wisdom or otherwise of our judgment—whether we could afford to wait for a long discussion with our American Allies, and so forth, or ought to carry the responsibility ourselves of not having placed upon us the burden of some terrible action taken today which might thus have been prevented.

Mr. W. Yates: Have the Prime Minister, Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government taken due note of the movement of Russian troops up to the border of Persia and Turkey, or do Her Majesty's Government consider that the Soviet Union is bluffing?

The Prime Minister: I think that in this case the wisest course is to take note of the facts, and not try to interpret them.

Mr. A. Henderson: Are we to take it that the intervention of the Government is not taking place under Article 51 of the United Nations Charter, but as a result of an appeal from the Government of Jordan to help them to resist a coup sponsored from the outside?

The Prime Minister: To avert a coup sponsored from the outside, and to avert the movement into their territory of organised forces from outside their territory.

Sir F. Medlicott: Bearing in mind the stresses and strains of eighteen months ago, which are all too familiar to most of the House, is the right hon. Gentleman aware that throughout most of the House and most of the country there will be an awareness of the almost intolerable burden which rests upon him personally, and of the fact that he is activated at this moment by the sole desire to preserve the peace of the world?

Mr. Mayhew: Do we take it from the Prime Minister's replies that not only will British troops not enter Iraq—the other part of the Federation—but will not be stationed in Jordan while Jordan troops enter Iraq?

The Prime Minister: Apart from the logistic difficulties, I have made it perfectly clear that the sole purpose of this rapid decision which we had to take is to try to secure stability in the area for the present, in the hope that better things may follow. That is its sole purpose.

Mr. Gaitskell: Can the Prime Minister give us a little more information about the alleged external threat to Jordan? This is a very important point, and I think that it would help the House a good deal if we could have some more information on it.

The Prime Minister: I am very glad that that question has been asked. There are three forms of aggression of which the Jordan authorities have knowledge and which are confirmed by sources available to us. There are revolutionary movements within the territory both from the west bank and in the capital itself; there are also movements of forces at present stationed in Syria which would, if the plot developed, move into the territory. Both are forms of aggression. One is physical aggression from outside and the other is aggression by the organisation of revolution from the inside.

Mr. Crossman: Will the Prime Minister tell us whether, in view of King Hussein's broadcast this morning that it was his intention to suppress the uprising in Bagdad, it will be the function of our troops to keep order in Jordan while the Arab Legion proceeds to Bagdad?

The Prime Minister: That will not be its function. Moreover, as I said, although these statements are made, if the hon. Member studied the logistics of the situation, he would find that movements from Jordan to Bagdad are quite difficult on either side.

Mr. J. Hynd: The Prime Minister has said that troops have been sent to the support of the Jordan Government at the request of the King of Jordan, as King of Jordan, and not as head of the Arab Federation. Is he not aware that under the Constitution of this Federation King Hussein is now the acting head of the Federation, and if our troops are to prevent aggression, from over the frontiers coming inwards, are they also to prevent, or will they tolerate, aggression from inside Jordan into Iraq, the other part of the Federation under King Hussein's orders?

The Prime Minister: The position is this. We do not know for certain whether the King of Iraq is alive or dead. The Union was one of the two branches of the Hashemite dynasty. The Union has been formally abrogated and declared non-existent by the revolutionary Government in Iraq. That is the whole situation as it now exists. As I say, our sole purpose, and, indeed, our only purpose, is to try to stabilise the position and to prevent a repetition in Jordan of the events which took place last Monday in Iraq.

Major Legge-Bourke: May I ask the Prime Minister whether he has any news of the well-being of British subjects, either in Iraq or in Jordan?

The Prime Minister: We have some news of a rather limited and partial kind which, I am happy to say, shows that things seem reasonably stable.

Mr. Paget: Do we recognise the action of the revolutionary Government in breaking the Union, or do we recognise the Arab Federation, as we did at the time of its formation, as being one and a single country, and not two separate countries?

The Prime Minister: I think that I merely stated the facts. What the juridical position is now is a rather complicated matter which I shall be happy to refer to in the debate.

Mr. Gaitskell: I said earlier that I thought a lot of these things could be discussed more suitably in debate, but I think that it would help the House a great deal if the Prime Minister would agree to open the debate himself with a rather fuller statement. I realise that that is different from the understanding we reached earlier, but we did not know then exactly what the right hon. Gentleman was going to say this afternoon. If he would do that I think it would be a real help to us all.

The Prime Minister: I am very ready to accede to the right hon. Gentleman's request, all the more so because it was at my suggestion, which he accepted very courteously, that we should proceed by debate at 7 o'clock, and that that would be the best method. Certainly, if it is the wish of the House, I will open the


debate with a longer statement, and perhaps, if it is necessary, and by leave of the House, I may be allowed to say a few words at the end of the debate.

Mr. Paget: On a point of order. May I ask, Mr. Speaker, whether this debate will end at 10 o'clock, or whether the rule can be suspended for some time? From a back-bench point of view three hours is rather a short time for such an important debate.

Mr. Speaker: The Motion for the Adjournment must lapse at 10 o'clock and the debate on this particular issue must come to an end at 10 o'clock. Notice has not been given that would enable any Standing Order to be suspended.

Mr. Ellis Smith: Further to that point of order, Mr. Speaker. While making it quite clear that I desire to preserve Standing Order No. 9 for the right of the House, may I ask this question? I understand that today is a Supply Day and I should, therefore, like to ask whether I am correct in my understanding of how the business is now to proceed. Why cannot we go on to the question forthwith? Seeing that the lives of our sons are to be at stake in this issue, why cannot we do our duty to our constituents by debating this serious situation right now?

Mr. Speaker: That is not a question for me. There is an Order of the Day for Supply which I am bound to proceed with, and it seems to be the agreement of both sides of the House that we should follow this course. It is not for me to alter it.

Mr. Ellis Smith: May I make it quite clear, Sir, that I respect the difficulties of the Chair. I have sufficient knowledge of the Standing Orders to know that they provide for a serious and urgent situation such as this. I hope that you will be generous and magnanimous enough, Sir, to bear in mind that we are also in a difficulty; and we are desirous, especially after we have been through two world wars, of doing our duty today. Therefore, if we cannot have an undertaking now that we are to proceed forthwith to discuss this most urgent matter, I desire the opportunity to take advantage of our Parliamentary rights and assert them under Standing Order No. 9. Will you be good enough to advise me on that, Mr. Speaker?

Mr. Speaker: The hon. Gentleman will realise that even if he got the leave of the House, in these circumstances, to move the Adjournment of the House, the effect would be precisely the same. The Motion would come on at 7 o'clock and finish at 10 o'clock, like any other Motion for the Adjournment. I do not think that anything would be gained by that, and in view of the promise of an early debate I might find it my duty not to accept the Motion under the Standing Order.

Mr. Ellis Smith: I thank you, Mr. Speaker. I want to absolve you of any difficulty at all, because it is quite obvious where the difficulty lies.

BUSINESS OF THE HOUSE

Ordered,
That this day Business other than the Business of Supply may be taken before Ten o'clock.—[The Prime Minister.]

Orders of the Day — SUPPLY

[22ND ALLOTTED DAY]

Considered in Committee.

[Sir CHARLES MACANDREW in the Chair]

CIVIL ESTIMATES AND ESTIMATES FOR REVENUE DEPARTMENTS, 1958–59

CLASS IX

VOTE 1. MINISTRY OF TRANSPORT AND CIVIL AVIATION

Motion made, and Question proposed,
That a sum, not exceeding £6,866,500, be granted to Her Majesty, to complete the sum necessary to defray the charge which will come in course of payment during the year ending on the 31st day of March 1959, for the salaries and expenses of the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation, including the salaries and expenses of the Coastguard, the Transport Tribunal, and the Air Transport Advisory Council, subscriptions to international organisations and sundry other services. [£3,500,000 has been voted on account.]

Whereupon Motion made, and Question, That the Chairman do report Progress and ask leave to sit again.—[Mr. Hughes-Young]—put and agreed to.

Committee report Progress; to sit again Tomorrow.

BRITISH TRANSPORT COMMISSION (ANNUAL REPORT)

3.59 p.m.

The Minister of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Harold Watkinson): I beg to move.
That this House takes note of the Tenth Annual Report, Statement of Accounts and Statistics of the British Transport Commission for 1957.
As our time is necessarily short, and I am sure that there are many hon. Members on both sides of the House who take a deep interest in this matter, I will try to confine myself to a brief statement. I am sure that it would be the wish of the House that I do not go into details about the Report and Accounts of the British Transport Commission. They are fully set out in the two volumes which hon. Members will have read. The first volume is the report of the year's work

and the second contains statistical and financial accounts.
I wish shortly to give my best estimate of present and future prospects in this great industry. I think it right to take note of the quite different relative positions of the Government and the Opposition about it, as, indeed, to all the so-called nationalised industries. I consider that important. Sometimes these matters are misunderstood because it is not clearly realised that the difference of approach is quite fundamental. The Opposition still believe in the full scope of a concept of complete nationalisation, not only for coal and railways but for iron and steel, long-distance road haulage and many other industries.
The Government do not believe that nationalisation, as such, as a political doctrine or, much more important, as a method of management, is a good way of running a business. We believe it to be outmoded and not applicable to the highly competitive times in which we live. While I do not for a moment impute any insincerity to those who claim that nationalisation is the right doctrine for the second half of the twentieth century, any more than I think they would claim that we are insincere in rejecting it, I think it right to start this debate by taking note of the quite different approach that we bring to it.
Having said that, I think it equally fair to say that I believe we both want this great industry to be a success. It is vital to the commercial future of our country. We cannot have a prosperous country without a modern and efficient railway system, with all its ancillaries. Although it is common to say, in these days, that railways do not pay, I am not at all sure that that is a doctrine we should accept if we want to have a modern and efficient transport system. Although our approach may be very different, and it is right that it should be so, none the less I think we both want to try to do the same thing.
Successive Conservative Governments and my predecessors in this office have tried not to denationalise, but to create a structure which, while it retains this accountability and responsibility to Parliament, tries to apply the most modern methods of business management and does not shrink from learning from those private enterprise industries on whose


success the whole prosperity of our country still depends. So it is from that point of view that I want to examine the present position of the Commission and its future prospects and then to say a word about further developments of policy that the Government would like to see.
If I may be permitted one other general comment, it is a bad thing, in business as well as in life, to be always taking one's pulse. I do not know whether I shall carry the House with me, in present circumstances of Select Committees and questions of Privilege, but we are in danger of making hypochondriacs out of the nationalised industries. We are always invigilating them, examining them, questioning them and talking about them in Parliament and, as a result, they are always getting knocked about in public. How often must their chairmen long to get on with perhaps the comparatively simple tasks of running their own industries?

Mr. Ernest Popplewell: The right hon. Gentleman's party started it.

Mr. Watkinson: All parties are equally to blame, if blame is to be applied.
My opinion may be shared by the Chairman of the British Transport Commission that this great industry, which is still the largest employer of labour in our country, ought to be able to get on with its own essential task. It is only eleven years old and has not had very much time in which to do so. Whether I carry the House with me or not, I think too much of that eleven years has been spent in controversy and perhaps not enough in constructive preparation of a modern, forward-looking railway system on which, as we all know, the future prosperity of those who work for it depends.
Before leaving that point, I should like to pay my tribute to Sir Brian Robertson. He serves his country well. He has a very difficult task, as we all recognise. He is trusted and respected by all those who work for the Commission and for all its variety of enterprises. I think that the House agrees that we wish him and his colleagues and the unions well in their task.
I wish to take a brief look at the present position. It is very difficult to produce

any accurate comparative results at present because the earlier months of this year are being compared with the early months of last year, when the position was distorted by petrol rationing. It is no use burking the fact that traffics, particularly commercial traffics, are down. I shall come back to that in a moment. The 1956 deficit was £54·4 million and the 1957 deficit £9 million more, £63·5 million. None the less, it should be pointed out, as can be seen from the White Paper, that this did not greatly exceed the forecast made at the time when the White Paper was constructed and, therefore, the Commission is still within the framework of that financial plan.
As to the present trading position, perhaps the only figure with which I need bother the House, and I think it a fairer figure, is that of tonnages carried by British Railways in the first half of 1957 compared with the first half of 1956, which was a normal year. On that basis the decline is 7·8 per cent. Transport statistics are a barometer of industrial activity and to look for the reason for this decline we might, for example, look at the home consumption of coal. It fell by 5 million tons in 1957 and it is already 1 million tons down in the first half of the year compared with the first half of last year.
As we all know, coal exports have fallen very much as well. We cannot have that situation without affecting the figures of the country's largest carrier of this basic commodity. So the railway results reflect to some extent the changing pattern in an industry like coal, which today, partly due to competitive sources of fuel, is finding it extremely difficult to market and distribute its total production.
The Commission's other activities have also been somewhat obscured by the bus strike, for example, and other difficulties such as the meat drivers' strike earlier this year, but it is not all a picture of decline. Traffic on British Road Services is running at last year's level, on inland waterways it is a little down, on the docks it is a little less, which is not surprising, but the hotels and catering service has excellent results. On the tourism side, I am delighted to say that the business of Thomas Cook and Son, particularly in dollars, is holding up very well indeed. So there are bright aspects


as well as aspects which show the pattern of change in the economy.
Against that it is right to note, as we try to make this survey of the activities of the Commission, that the Government have decided—it is well known and I need not labour it—that they are not going to increase the size of advances to the Commission which have been and are being given under the Transport (Railway Finances) Act. People say that that is something which is wrong and which the Commission dislikes. I do not take that view and I believe that I speak for the Commission when I say that it does not wish to be relieved of the necessary financial disciplines under which any great business must work, particularly a great business in debt to its bankers—in this case, Her Majesty's Government—to the tune of many millions of pounds. Any business in that situation would be under severe discipline from its bank, or whoever had advanced money to it.
It is right, and I think the Commission accept it as right, that the Commission should have its own financial discipline. Of course, that does not make life easier for the Commission, particularly as it has not asked—again, this should be made clear to the House—to be relieved from its commitment to break even by 1961–62. Although the estimates which were set out in the White Paper necessarily had to assume certain things, and necessarily had to be general in their nature, I am advised by the Chairman that he and his colleagues still believe themselves on reasonable ground in keeping within the terms of the White Paper and thus to break even in 1961–62.

Mr. Popplewell: While we appreciate what the Minister has said, will he assure the House that he is allowing the Transport Commission to go ahead, for instance, with the development and application of the continuous brake, which he curtailed a little while ago, and with the development of marshalling yards, which also was curtailed a short time ago? Will he help the Commission to break even?

Mr. Watkinson: I shall have some good news about that later, but I hope that the Committee will forgive me if I do not give way very much. It is not that I wish to be discourteous, but I know that other hon. Members wish to speak,

and I want to sit down as soon as I can so that they may do so.
The Government are encouraged by the very welcome fact that, wherever one examines the progress of modernisation on the railways, one finds that it is paying better than anybody thought. If one considers dieselisation or any other phase which is really beginning to make progress—I know that hon. Members who know about these things will agree—one finds that it is paying off extremely well. There is very real hope for the future and, when Sir Brian Robertson said, at his Press Conference, that the results had fully justified expectations, I think that he was being, on the whole, rather modest.
There is another aspect to this broad survey which is not, I think, sufficiently recognised and which I hope the House will recognise. Eleven years ago, the Commission inherited a railway system which had been designed when this country did not contain a single motor car. The railway system which it then inherited was practically exactly as it had been designed in a carless age. Now, the railway system has to compete with 7 million motor vehicles on the roads and an enormous extra number of motor vehicles which come on to the roads every year. It would be the wildest folly to imagine that one could maintain a railway system designed for the Victorian era in exactly the same state in the motor car age.
I think that it is wrong, therefore, to suggest that cutting down or shedding some parts of the railway service is really either strangling it to death or cutting off its arms or legs. It is really an effort to fit it to live in the second half of the twentieth century, to live with the motor vehicle, I hope in a complementary sense and not necessarily in the sense of each trying to destroy the other.
This is the task which the Commission and the House face. The object of the capital investment in which we are placing so much of our money on Government capital account is not to maintain the kind of railway system which would be the wrong one for the years to come but to streamline it, to make it more efficient and thus more profitable, although, inevitably, smaller in its total size.
There has been some misunderstanding about the capital investment position, and I want to say a word or two briefly about that, because we should have the facts clear. I shall speak here only of the railways, because they are the important matter. When the capital cuts were made in September, 1957, the Transport Commission decided that it would allocate £145 million each year to railway modernisation. That, in itself, was a great deal more than the White Paper figure, but, of course, it was somewhat less than the Commission had originally planned to spend.
It was probably a good deal less than the notional budgets which the regions brought forward and which were based entirely, I am advised, on the sort of theoretical maximum which a region could spend if it could get all its deliveries, buy what it liked and spend what it liked. That is quite a useful internal exercise, but those budgets were never approved by the Commission, either in the amounts stated, or indeed, in any amount at all. Any idea that we are talking about an enormously larger figure than £145 million is, frankly, quite incorrect.
What proves that the Commission has not suffered a major cut-back—it is important for the House to know this—is that when we had the reconsideration, in the spring of this year, of the capital investment programme and when the Government agreed, as part of the wages settlement, to make an additional £25 million available for this year and next, the Commission said that it now had as much money as it could usefully spend. I have been most carefully into this with the Commission and its Chairman, who advises me that, with this extra £25 million, the Commission now has as much money as it can usefully spend in this year and next year on capital investment. If the Commission cannot ask for more, I do not think that the Government can do more than give the sums of money which the Commission itself says is as much as it can usefully spend. I hope that I shall be able to give the House some proof of that a little later.
I do not say that it is wrong that the Government should be generous to the Commission. It has a vast task to perform and we need a modern railway system. But it would be quite unfair to say that the Government have not

been generous to the Commission, because, for the next two years certainly, they have been. Some proof of this is shown by the fact that I can announce today that with the extra capital authorised the Commission is placing orders for another 90 main line diesel locomotives for delivery in 1959. This is on top of the 200 already planned for delivery in 1959, and should greatly improve the railways' revenue earning ability.
This is not at the expense of the great electrification programme in which, of course, is the real future. Diesels are the interim phase. Electrification from atomic power, we all hope, will provide the final solution to the railway problems. In the Styal section, between Manchester and Crewe, the overhead equipment is and complete and testing will start very shortly on the high 25 kilovolt system. Last Sunday, the whole section between Wilmslow and Slade Green Junction was changed over from semaphore to colour light signalling, which will cater for the greater speed. Stage 2 of the Crewe—Liverpool section is now being surveyed. I need not trouble the House with the many surburban electrification programmes which are ahead of schedule, because they are, I think, well known.
To sum up on modernisation, I can say that we have done what the Commission wanted. We have given it the money it asked for. It is capable of spending the money to the best advantage. I was delighted, also, to see further evidence of something that I have always believed, namely, that the Commission carries the trade unions with it in the belief that a more modern and more efficient railway system is the right policy not only for management but for the men as well.

Mr. J. T. Price: I appreciate that the question of how the moneys available to the Commission shall be employed is a highly technical one, but would the right hon. Gentleman care to spend a moment or two dealing with something which concerns my constituents particularly? To what extent are the smaller sums of money being justified because the railway workshops are not being used for capital rebuilding and orders are being handed out to outside contractors?

Mr. Watkinson: That is something which concerns many hon. Members. My


hon. Friend the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will wind up the debate, very briefly, and I thought that it would be more convenient if he were to deal specifically with the railway workshops and any of the points raised by hon. Members.
I want to make the position quite clear on the subject of fares and charges. As I said in the House in answer to my hon. Friend the Member for Truro (Mr. G. Wilson) on 30th June, the Chairman of the Commission told me on 2nd May that, in his view and that of his colleagues, there is not at present scope for obtaining a large increase in receipts by raising fares. That is why the bulk of the current wage increases in London and on London Transport will have to be met from economies. This is in the best interests of the business and of everybody who works in it. That is why the Commission does not propose to make any fare increases in the near future, except to clear away the last of the sub-standard fare anomalies, which, I am sure, is absolutely right.
The other thing that the House should be quite clear about, although it has already been told in answer to a Question, is that, as the Commission at the moment has no authority to increase fares because it has exhausted its present charging powers, it will be making an application to the Transport Tribunal for the necessary authority, I believe, early in September. If it obtains that authority, what use it makes of it is another matter. I believe, in any case, that any alterations which were agreed probably could not come into effect until next year, because a date next year is, I think, the earliest date that the Transport Tribunal would fix.
To those who are bothered about fares, I would say that the issue is not really a very real one until at least next year. That is why economies are so important. I do not think—if I may again try to deal with policy—that the relatively few people who have said that this great drive for economy is adverse to the future of the Commission are right. It would be only adverse to its future, in my view, if two things were true—if the men were being treated badly, recklessly sacked, and slashing cuts were made in that sense, which is something which I would

never defend; and, equally, if quite ruthless cuts were being made in essential services that, too, would be wrong. But that is not so.
As I think most hon. Members know, the Chairman of the Commission has given very clear pledges to the trade unions, and rightly so, that any redundancy will be properly handled through the proper redundancy agreements. Most of this will be done by cutting down on recruitment. I wanted to say that because I wish to tell the House that by the end of June, 1958, a reduction of over 12,500 was made in the numbers employed on the year previously—a very large reduction indeed.
Similarly, recruitment has been heavily cut down, but this has been done within proper limits and as a good employer should do it. Equally, London Transport has to face painful cuts, and the new schedules in the autumn will involve a reduction of about 9 per cent. on top of the original 4 per cent. planned. It will mean the closing of garages as well as the cutting of routes. Of course, there are those who say that London traffic will move more easily if there are fewer buses. I do not necessarily hold that view, but whether we do or whether we do not, there will have to be cuts, and I think that, on the whole, they are not cuts which will result in the breaching of the general position which London Transport has to face, and that is providing adequate services.

Mr. David Jones: Do I understand the right hon. Gentleman to say that there has been a reduction of 12,000 in the railway staff since the beginning of this year? If that is so, will he tell me why it was necessary for the Commission to increase the staff between 1st January, 1957, and 31st December, by nearly 3,000 and then within six months cut it by 12,000?

Mr. Watkinson: The hon. Gentleman is quite right in saying that the staff employed on British Railways, as I said, have been reduced by 12,500. He knows quite enough about the railways to know that, normally, there is a pattern of recruitment against wastage caused by people who leave the industry, those who retire, and so on.
As to why the total figures went up last year, if there is a reasonable answer my


hon. Friend will give it at the end of the debate. All that I am concerned with at the moment is to tell the House that the Commission, in co-operation with the unions, has done what it said it would do, and that is to make large reductions in staff as a necessary measure of economy and to make them properly, as it should.
As the House knows, many other economies are being made. One hundred thousand wagons are being dealt with, locomotives are being cut down and the total operating stock of steam locomotives at 15th June, 1958, was 17,610 compared with 18,009 a year earlier, a reduction of nearly 400, although in that period a great many new diesel locomotives were introduced. So one has this pattern of sensible, practical economies which, I believe, will improve efficiency.
There is the question of branch lines and the unremunerative services. I think it right that I should tell the House that I have seen the chairman of the central and area consultative committees and have tried to explain to them—and I think I have obtained their agreement to this—that the railways are not obliged to provide unecomonic services quite regardless of their operating efficiency.
Of course, they are obliged to do all that they can to meet the transport problems in their areas, and I believe that as a result of what we in this House know as the "Bluebell Line" inquiry great improvements will be made in the kind of case which the Commission bring forward, which, I think, will be better from the point of view of public information, easier for the consultative committees and, perhaps, better for the railways.
I hope that we shall have a better procedure and I am grateful to that inquiry because it has ironed out some of the difficulties, but, at the same time, I have made it plain to the consultative committees that it is not their job to maintain completely uneconomic services merely because the public need may show some justification for them.
The yardstick must be: can the services one day be made to pay? If the firm answer is that it cannot, then that is not a service which should be allowed to stay. [An HON. MEMBER: "What about alternative services?"] It is the duty of the consultative committees to study

alternative services and satisfy themselves as far as they can that they are available.
I want to say a brief word about railway workshops. I have discussed this with the Chairman and he wants me to say that he recognises and the Commission recognises that it has a moral obligation to act, with special concern for its employees in those towns where railways are the main industries. I do not want to develop that now and my hon. Friend will deal with it later. I want, however, to make plain that that is the Commission's considered policy.
What about the future? On the passenger side, I am delighted to tell the House that it is really a good story. On the whole, the passenger side has held up extremely well. The new diesels are gaining new customers and keeping them, and, generally, if one judges the success of the railways by their passenger traffic they are doing remarkably well.
It is, of course, on the freight side that the difficulties arise. I want to say a brief word about what the Commission is aiming at. It is trying to provide a quite new type of service for freight. This will be a road-rail service in some cases. In other cases it will be a door-to-door through service of pallets, containers and the demountable body which, I think, is showing possibilities of great development.
That is really the box body which can be lifted off a lorry on to a railway truck and quickly off again on to a lorry, giving a through service from door to door, without any difficulties of breakage or pilferage, and which can be used on ships, as I saw recently in New York, as well as on the railways. I believe that that offers great possibilities. What the Commission want is "freight liners" on the railways which will be made up of fast, fully-braked flat or well wagons carrying demountable bodies and running to time-table service at very high speeds.
When that happens, businessmen, who are themselves contributing to this very large sum of public money which we are investing in the railways, must take careful account—I hope they will—of the services that the railways offer. But they must be competitive services, and I am certain that these competitive services are coming. All I ask is that if they do come, the business world will take advantage of this very fast method of


travel which, however many motor roads the Government may be able to build, will still offer greater advantages in speed in transit between London and Manchester or Edinburgh and many other large centres over anything that can be done by road.
I could talk about many other fascinating developments. There have been very interesting developments in coal handling. For example, the first fully-mechanised coal handling plant for domestic fuel was recently opened in North London, which again cuts out labour and makes for greater efficiency. I am delighted to see that the Association of British Chambers of Commerce has commented favourably recently on the way in which the railways are operating the merchandise charges scheme.
The other thing which would interest hon. Members who have studied the matter is the new development within the regions of line management, better commercial management and more decentralised management which is nearer to the customer. I attach great importance to these developments, because I believe that the future of the railways lies in developing the regional pattern. We owe a debt of gratitude to those men who serve on the regional boards. Many of them are local businessmen who can bring business to the railways.
Now that the regions are an established success, it is right that within the regions we should have new efforts to create closer and better local management which is more in touch with the customer and, therefore, able to give a better service. The studies that I have been able to make show great promise. As the new freight trains Dome along the men will be there not only to manage and operate them, but also to sell the services to the business community.
I apologise for not speaking about some of the other activities of the Commission, such as the canals, docks and British Road Services. My hon. Friend will have something to say about them when he winds up the debate. I thought it right that I should concentrate on the railways, because it is on the railways that the main problems arise and where the main money of the Commission lies.
To sum up, what of the future? The Government believe that the regional

pattern is right, that it should be further developed and that the regions should gradually be given greater autonomy. They should be encouraged within themselves to decentralise and given as much managerial autonomy as is proper. That is certainly the wish of the Commission, and the Government believe that the process of decentralisation if it is not denationalisation, is a method of making the railways more efficient, more sensible to local needs and gives a better service to local industries and brings back that sense of pride and esprit de corps in the Commission's own service which was one of the great foundations of the railway service before nationalisation. That is what the Government wish to see. They do not want to see the industry thrown back into the melting pot, but a sense of practical and businesslike evolution from which much commercial advantage can be gained.
We are considering a year of great difficulty, and results which, in some senses, are very encouraging, but in others much still needs to be done before one can be sure that the White Paper forecasts will be fully realised. However, the people who run the railways matter perhaps much more than anything else. From what I have been able to see of them, they seem to be in very good heart and work well together, and there is a much greater feeling that there is a real future for the railways as modernisation begins to pay off.
In these circumstances, the great sum of money which is being wagered on new development is right. It will pay a national dividend, and, therefore, we should wish well to the management, to the Chairman of the Commission and to the trade union leaders who, I think, play a great part. It is not easy to co-operate in an industry that is having to cut away parts of its service. The House should recognise that and pay tribute to the union leaders who co-operate in a thankless yet necessary task.
All I can do, as the Minister responsible for this great industry, is to say that I believe in it. I believe that it will succeed. I wish all those who work in it well, and I will, together with my colleagues in the Ministry, do my best to serve it.

4.35 p.m.

Mr. Ernest Davies: I am sure that the House will share the


sentiments which were expressed by the Minister in his closing remarks. Some of the facts which he presented, particularly about modernisation, were most encouraging. It is regrettable that, for reasons which we all appreciate, the debate will be curtailed, and I, too, will try to follow the example of the Minister and discard many of the notes I had prepared.
There are, however, a number of things which require to be said which will, to a certain extent, be political. The Minister made it clear at the outset that the difference in approach between the Government and Opposition regarding transport policy is fundamental. That is perfectly true, and he will find us quite incorrigible in this respect. He suggested that the nationalised boards were tending to become hypochondriacs and that we were invigilating them too much. He said that we have had eleven years of controversy, and he expressed, as he frequently has done before, the wish that this controversy should come to an end.
We cannot, however, absolve him of blame for the continuance of this controversy. What I cannot understand is the mentality of Members of the Government who consider that to reverse the policy of the Opposition does not cause political controversy. In their view, that is perfectly legitimate, but when the Opposition threatens to revert to the status quo and to sick to its own policy in which it believes, that is interpreted as being controversial and illegitimate. It appears to me that it is not considered by the Government to be party political for the Government to attack the Opposition, but if we attack the Government for attacking us then we are accused of playing party politics.
The Minister also stated that he wanted the Commission to succeed, and I accept that. I do not accept, however, that he is going the right way about it. In the debate on 22nd April, I outlined the disastrous steps which had been taken by the Government since 1951 and which have wrecked the planned and balanced transport system which the 1947 Act was designed to create. I do not propose to repeat the accusations which we then laid at the Government's door. But the Annual Report and Accounts and the serious financial state of the Commission, with which, I regret, the Minister did not find time or did not wish to deal, must

be viewed against the background of the Government's record.
I do not think that the present state of the Commission can be divorced from Government transport policy. On this side, we hold the Government responsible for today's state of the Commission and consider that their general economic policy, combined with their political partisan handling of transport affairs, is the main cause of the desperate state of the Commission's finances.
Having said that, I should like to proceed to consider the Annual Report itself. It shows that, in the economic and efficient operating of its undertaking, the Commission continues to make very satisfactory progress, for which all engaged in it deserve congratulation. The financial statistical summaries published at the back of Volume II of the Report show the ten years of progress since nationalisation. We can be proud of the operational results. Whatever yardstick of efficiency be taken, it shows a steady improvement over these ten years. The efficiency of the Commission has undoubtedly been rising throughout that time, and there is, therefore, a great deal on the credit side.
The other side of the picture is, of course, the one to which the Minister referred—the falling off in freight traffics, which is having a very unfortunate effect upon the affairs of the Commission. This is mainly due to the general trend for traffics to drift from rail to road. For that, there are probably two main reasons. The first is the technical development of road transport and its generally greater convenience for a very large amount of traffic. Secondly, there is the growth of private transport, which is causing a drift from the public sector. That, of course, cannot be halted. It would be foolish to take a Canute-like attitude to the growth of road transport, in which I also include the increased number of C licence holders.
Although that trend cannot be halted, it can be controlled by planning the public sector of transport and keeping it in balance. That, I think, is where the Government have failed. By scrapping the planned transport system and reverting to a system of competition, instead of bringing about some order in the industry, they have brought about disorder. The result is that there has been a growth in transport facilities generally that is now definitely excessive.
The fact that we have excessive transport today, however, does not mean that the answer is to be found in ruthless cutting down of the public services, although some may be inessential today and could be cut out, as in London. Evidence produced during the bus strike shows that the fleet can certainly be redeployed to better advantage. With the railways, the position is different. One of the favourable features of the Report is that during the last year there was an increase in passenger traffic. There was the largest number of passenger journeys since nationalisation.
That is due, I am sure—and as the Minister himself has said—to the modernisation that has taken place. But, at this time, when we are beginning to reap the benefits of dieselisation and electrification, faster, more frequent and more comfortable services, it is most unfortunate that there should be a cutback in those services in order to attempt to make these economies. Not only are we running the risk of losing some of the gain we have already reaped from modernisation, but in my view there is the second and greater danger that if we are to apply this standard of whether a service is paying or not and of eliminating those services that are not paying, we destroy that element of public service that is essential if the community is to have an adequate and efficient transport system.
There is the danger of that happening today. The transport system must be regarded as a whole. There will always be some services that do not pay, and they have to be supported by those that do. Very often it is those unremunerative services that are the most essential; that is to say, they are in those areas that require transport, particularly in the sparsely-populated and rural areas. They can never pay, but if the transport system is regarded as a whole there can be some averaging of costs and cross-subsidisation, and those services can be saved. If, on the other hand, the Government continue to pursue this fetish of competition, it will be necessary for some of the remunerative services to be cut down, and the unremunerative services will be driven out.
On this side, therefore, we stand by our original policy, that whatever economies

are introduced, however many unremunerative services are cut out, and however successful modernisation may be, the final answer must still be found in the common ownership of the main means of transport; that is, their ownership and operation as a single entity, so that a balanced system can be provided. I have fears that the Government's policy of competition within the industry is driving transport towards insolvency, and only co-ordination along the lines advocated by the Labour Party can save it.
This shows clearly in the results of the Commission last year. Although the overall picture is very frightening, individually, except for the railways, there have been gains. The outstanding achievment of course is that of British Road Services. With less than half the fleet that it had as its maximum, it succeeded in increasing its earnings last year by over £1 million. Because of Suez, and for other reasons, it carried 14 per cent. less general haulage than in the year before, but increased its parcels traffic by 6 per cent. and succeeded in winning from competitors twice as much as it lost to them. It earned £2·8 million with this reduced fleet, against £1·8 million in the previous year.
Compared with peak profits of practically £9 million in 1953 and 1954, that is a very fine achievement. Despite this denationalisation, despite cut-throat competition within the industry, despite the breaking of rules by its competitors, and despite the great growth in C licences, B.R.S. has had a very good year and is continuing to prosper, as the Minister pointed out. If ever nationalisation were justified, it is justified by the results of B.R.S.
Nevertheless, one cannot but reflect on how many millions more would have been earned by the Commission if the Government had not, for purely party political reasons, sold off half of the B.R.S. fleet, restricted its operations and brought anarchic conditions to the road transport industry; how much more would have been available to offset losses on other of the Commission's undertakings. It is in that that I think lies the justification of the Labour Party in treating the industry as a single undertaking, with revenues going to a common financial pool.
One has only to look at the figures to see that. Last year, British Railways


lost £27·1 million. On the other undertakings of the Commission there was a surplus of £23·4 million, which reduced the net loss of the Transport Commission—before central charges, of course—to £3·7 million. In other words, this £27 million deficit of the railways was offset by more than £23 million. That shows how, if we balance one against the other, we are able to maintain our unremunerative services. Actually, when one takes into account the central charges, these other services more than earned their central charges and had an overall balance of £4·6 million.
That is not only a justification of the Labour Party's transport policy but, equally, it is a condemnation of the Government's policy. It is a condemnation because, as a result of this disintegration of the Transport Commission in the way that the Government have followed, the Commission is continuing to accumulate a very large deficit which is getting it into an extremely serious financial position, and I wish that the Minister had found time this afternoon at least to refer and, to some extent, to dwell on the very serious nature of the finances of the Commission. The accounts show that £202 million has been transferred to the special account, which consists of the accumulated deficits and accumulated interest of the last two years, and on that liability, that deferred liability, as it were, interest continues to accumulate to a very great extent as the Commission is borrowing at between 5 per cent. and 6 per cent.
But this special account is only the beginning of the story, because the permitted limit of borrowings of the Commission against deficits is £250 million. When the Bill proposing that measure was introduced we considered that it was inadequate and that greater flexibility in borrowing should be allowed to the Commission. How right we were. So far in only two years £118 million has had to be borrowed against a maximum limit of £250 million, and yet there are still five years to go and there is only available £132 million for these coming five years. Surely, in view of the present position of the Commission, it is very unlikely that this residue of £132 million will be adequate to meet the deficits which will accumulate between now and 1962, which is the year that the Commission expects to break even.
It is terrible to contemplate the total accumulated liabilities and indebtedness which will accrue to the Commission by 1962. It reaches astronomical figures, and it is quite unrealistic to burden the Commission with this very heavy liability and to consider that it will ever be possible to repay it. I suggest, therefore, that the financial outlook for the Commission is very grave indeed today. The Government have not declared what they intend to do about it, nor, apparently, are they doing anything about it—certainly nothing of which we in this House are aware. They are tending to shirk their responsibility.
As for the steps which the Government have taken to help the Commission, there is the modernisation plan with which the Minister dealt, though in passing I would say that I think the Government take upon themselves a little too much credit for this modernisation plan. After all, the plan was drawn up by the Commission early in 1955, and it was only after a series of disastrous interventions by the Government, in preventing the Commission from increasing its charges, for which it had authority, against the advice of the Transport Tribunal, that it was considered essential that there should be a general review of the Commission's finances. The White Paper appeared in October, 1956, and subsequently the Government had to make arrangements for meeting these deficits by loans.
The modernisation plan, however, is being financed as to more than half by the Commission itself. The Commission itself is financing this modernisation plan to a large extent from its reserves for depreciation, replacement, renewals and so forth. According to the Report last year, half was financed by the Commission; that is to say, £73 million out of £137 million of capital investment came out of the funds of the Commission itself. When I hear the Minister taking credit for this, he sounds to me as though he has put his hands into his own pocket to assist the Commission.
Having approved the modernisation plan, the Government then unfortunately cut back on the total permitted, with which the Minister dealt this afternoon. There is evidence in page after page of the Report of delays which have taken place in the modernisation programme


as a result of those cuts. They are referred to in many paragraphs to which I could refer, but as I do not want to take up the time of the House, I will not do so now. The Commission thought that at this time when there is a relaxation of capital investment by the private sector of industry, the least that the Government could do in the case of the railways, where the absolute maximum capital investment is essential if they are ever to pay their way, would be to give them freedom now to go ahead to the full extent of which they are capable. The Minister suggested that they could not go further ahead, but the regions hold a different view, as he more or less admitted in the statement that he made about the plans which they put forward.
If they are given greater freedom to accelerate their capital investment if it is possible to do so, there is the safeguard that they are always limited by technical availabilities of both materials and manpower, and they cannot run away because of that. The Government have been inconsistent in their policy in this respect. They have accepted all along that modernisation is the only cure, but on this occasion they held up modernisation quite unnecessarily, and this cannot but have had a deleterious effect upon the Commission.
As to what the Government are doing about the finances, the Minister referred to the limitation on the amount of borrowing for deficits, and one accepts what he said, subject to the qualifications that I have already made. But at the same time, though they did that, they imposed restrictions upon the Commission to prevent it from trying to meet its increased costs by higher charges. I agree with the Minister and the Commission that there are certain limitations to the extent to which one can increase charges and bring in extra net revenue. What I do say is that if the Minister is imposing limitations on the amount of the deficit and costs go up, the Commission must be free to act as a commercial concern and, if it considers it necessary to increase the charges, it should be permitted to do so and the Government should not intervene unless there are very good reasons for doing so.
In the past there has been intervention which, in my view, was not justified. The Minister said this afternoon that the Commission

is to apply to the Tribunal for authority to increase its charges. If that authority is granted, I hope the Minister can give an assurance that he will not again intervene and go against the advice of the Tribunal to the Commission if the Tribunal says that the Commission is entitled to increase its charges. That is to say, when the time comes when the Commission considers that it is both necessary and practicable to raise the charges, we hope that the Minister will allow the Commission to do so and will not intervene once more.
I have cut my remarks because of the short time available for this debate. I will conclude by repeating that I consider that the Government's transport story is a sorry one. What the country needs is a consistent and realistic transport policy. The Government have not got one. They were first guided by their partisan approach to try to destroy the integrated system which was being built up and they ran up the flag of competition in its place. They tried to sell off the profitable sector of road haulage. They found they could not complete the transaction because there were not enough buyers and because industry valued the publicly-owned service and wanted it maintained. But damage was done. None the less, the B.R.S. could not be destroyed and it rose again to make these excellent profits this year.
However, as a result of the Government's policy, the British Transport Commission has run into a period of very heavy deficits, and the Government had to seek Parliamentary authorisation to meet them through loans during the transition period of modernisation. Then, having accepted that modernisation was the only salvation, they handicapped the Commission by cutting the programme unnecessarily, and indeed they are being forced to restore those cuts some six or more months later. They order the Commission to keep within the permitted deficits, but they deny it the right to increase its charges to enable it to meet higher costs. I suggest that this series of contradictory decisions and confusing interference in the Commission's affairs is not a transport policy. This policy cannot lead to solvency but only to bankruptcy, and that means, ultimately, subsidisation of the transport industry. There is only one way to avoid that and to get


the Commission out of this distressing situation. That is to return to the plan of a cublicly-owned transport system, which remains Labour's policy.

5.0 p.m.

Mr. James Dance: There can be very few of us at the moment whose minds are not filled with anxiety at the events now taking place throughout the world. Yet I feel that it is very right and proper, and very British, that we should shelve those anxieties for a short time and discuss internal affairs which are of such importance.
I was extremely pleased to hear my right hon. Friend paint such a bright picture for the future of British Railways, and I wish them well. But the picture at the present moment is not, I am afraid, so bright. There can be very few of us who do not wish to see more and more goods traffic being taken off the roads and sent to the railways. There are two reasons for this, I think. The first is to relieve the congestion on our roads. Indeed, I believe that if some of the heavy loads went back to the railways many of our existing roads would, with certain modifications, be adequate to take the lighter motor traffic which would go on them. It would also mean a great saving in not having to acquire valuable agricultural land for the purpose of constructing new roads.
The second reason, which is also vitally important, is to see that the railways pay. I am informed that the goods traffic is the bread and butter of the railways. We have not to look very far to see why these goods do not go on to the railways at the present time. The first reason is the very heavy charges imposed by that service as compared with road transport. The second reason is the appalling uncertainty of when goods sent by rail will arrive.
If a private enterprise business is going badly, there are two things which can be done. Prices can certainly be raised, but that is a short-sighted policy, and any business that did that would soon go smash. The other way is to make the business more efficient and to reduce prices. That is what I believe we have got to do.
I have some figures which I received from a large industrialist in the Midlands.

They are not old figures—indeed, they were obtained only last Monday—and, quite frankly, I find them staggering. The cost of carrying 1 cwt. of goods by goods train from my constituency of Bromsgrove to London is 10s. 6d. whereas by road transport it is only 9s. 5d. When we go higher up the scale the contrast is even greater. For example, to carry 5 tons of goods by rail would cost 97s. 4d. compared with 40s. 9d. by road.
I must make it clear that there are two forms of goods carried by road classes A and B. Class A consists of normal packaging which is not inconveniently carried and Class B of bulky, awkward packages. I must admit that for the latter class the road transport charge for 5 tons of goods is 62s. 5d., but that still represents a great difference when compared with 97s. 4d.
One firm in the Midlands wished to send 4 tons of rubber hose to Yorkshire. It was quoted 157s. 9d. a ton, which represents, roughly, £31 10s. for the four tons. British Road Services the same company and certainly the same shareholders—quoted £16 for the lot. I believe that the difference between those two prices bears out the wisdom of the Government in allowing competition on the roads. As long as this sort of discrepancy in price continues, I cannot see some types of goods ever going back to the railways.
There is another point I wish to make, and that is the appallingly long time it takes to get a firm quotation from the railways. I am informed that if one wants a firm quotation it may mean waiting two or three weeks. The result is that the goods have usually been sent by road and delivered before the quotation is received and that the railways lose the traffic.
A second point is the uncertainty about when goods sent by rail will arrive. I was speaking the other day to another industrialist who sends a certain amount of goods by rail. He told me that he never sends any goods for export by rail because he could not tolerate the uncertainty of when the goods would arrive at the port. He said he could not risk the goods not being delivered to the foreign country to which they were consigned and thereby, perhaps, lose a contract.
One must bear in mind that when one sends something to a client and it does not arrive that client does not blame British Railways but the consignee. That


may easily lead to losing a very valued client. I was speaking to a big wholesale wine merchant the other day. He told me that whilst his firm sent quite a lot of goods by rail if there was no particular need for them to arrive at a fixed time, when it was a question of sending goods wanted for a specific party or function the firm never sent them by rail.

Mr. Percy Collick: Does not the hon. Gentleman know that at the moment British Railways have a guaranteed 24-hour service of acceptance and delivery from the main towns in this country to the ports? That being so, I cannot understand the incidents to which he is referring.

Mr. Dance: I can assure the hon. Gentleman that I am not referring to just one individual. As a matter of fact, there was a conference of industrialists in Birmingham and this was the conclusion at which it arrived.
I have been a little critical. I do not want to be destructive, but constructive. I fully realise that this programme of modernisation and reorganisation is going on, but I want to suggest—it may be that I shall be told that when this programme has been carried out we shall find a great improvement—that we should have a goods time-table. I do not mean a time-table which states exactly the hour at which goods will arrive. But if I want to send goods from London to Perth, why cannot I have a time-table showing the day when they will get there? As far as I can make out, one really has no clue as to when goods sent by rail will turn up. That is just not good enough, and I really do not see how we can expect the railways to pay when there is this type of inefficiency.
I recently re-read an article which I wrote a year ago when we raised the salaries of certain executives in nationalised industries. I said in that article that what we did was in no way a reward for inefficiency, but that its object was to induce go-ahead business brains to enter these industries. So far, I have not seen much evidence of that taking place. There is no doubt that in the examples I have quoted to the House much inefficiency exists, and I hope that in the near future my right hon. Friend will consider recommending some change.
In conclusion, I do not want in any way to say a word against the actual people working on the railways. Far from it. Indeed, I am full of praise for them. They are first-class chaps. However, I think that the time has arrived when the Executive should make the railways more efficient and allow these first-class men to prove their efficiency.

5.10 p.m.

Mr. Leslie Spriggs: I have read Volumes I and II of the British Transport Commission's Report and have found them to be very good reading. They are set out in detail not only for us as Members of the House of Commons, but for the public, our competitors and our critics. I hope that all those who have taken the trouble to criticise railway transport will also take the trouble to read the Report. Do not take anyone else's word for it; read it. I hope that hon. Members will compliment the British Transport Commission on the way in which it sets out the details in the Report. I think it is splendid.
The most important thing about nationalised transport, is its accountability to Parliament, so that we, the representatives of the nation, may look at what is happening in British transport and do what we can to help and better it. The type of man we have in the industry, as well as in the House of Commons on both sides, will do his best. On behalf of the railwaymen—I was with them only a few weeks ago—who are working in the marshalling yards that we read about, I would call attention to the fact that they are using stock that is unsuitable for men to work with. This is a subject which we have taken up with the management, whilst appreciating at the same time the difficulties caused by the restriction of capital expenditure. This equipment is unsuitable for the men, but because of the limitations upon capital expenditure there are difficulties in the way of the British Transport Commission's modernisation plans.
To those hon. Members who say that we should pay our own way in the railway industry, I reply that we in the industry also want it to pay. We do not want to have to rely upon subsidies. Hon. Members must devise a system whereby the British Transport Commission can meet its costs. New marshalling yards


are being built which have a far greater earning potential and enable a speeding up of traffic. Trains can get to their destinations faster and faster. This will bring about not only a more economical means of transporting goods, but redundancy for many of the staff. My union, the National Union of Railwaymen, has looked at this matter, in co-operation with the British Transport Commission, in a very sensible way. We are prepared to go ahead with modernisation. I hope that the public do not expect that anything will be done for them or for anyone else at the expense of those who are working inside the industry.
There are twenty-seven new marshalling yards planned, but owing to the restriction upon capital expenditure that programme has had to be slowed down. When they are completed, the British Transport Commission will be able to close 153 old marshalling yards which are looked upon as wasteful and obsolete. With alterations of a further twenty-seven, another thirty-seven yards can be partially closed. There will be saving of many hours for the working of trains at those new marshalling yards.
The British Transport Commission must be given credit for what it has done on the railway stations. I remember saying that we needed a new station at Shaw Street, St. Helens. Our station is minus part of its roof. I believe that St. Helens deserves a far brighter and larger station. Because of the economic situation, we must look at what the British Transport Commission has done, and not only at what we think it ought to do.
The restriction on capital expenditure is slowing up one of the most vital objects of the British Transport Commission, and that is safer signalling on the railways. Nothing hurts a railwayman more than to hear of an accident in which people have been killed or injured. I believe that all hon. Members feel the same way. When accidents happen and the inspectors of the Minister of Transport report that faults were found in the signalling apparatus, it takes our mind back to the relative values of life and capital. I hope that the House will look at the situation through the eyes of the men who are on the job. We want new marshalling yards and we are prepared to play our

part. If there is an international emergency in which we cannot get oil, the railways will run and they will do what they did in the last war, which is to see that the goods are delivered.
I want to bring the attention of hon. Members to the position in my constituency, which is in a big transport area. Most hon. Members know St. Helens because of its famous glass industry. Others will know it because of its railway transport works, and others because of its coal output. Some will know of its famous technical college, whilst hon. and gallant Gentlemen will know of its famous Territorial Army Regiment. I had the honour of seeing that regiment given the freedom of the borough last Saturday I was proud of those men, and their officers.
When we talk of transport charges, most of us try to be honest. I know that businessmen do, because it is no use being dishonest with yourself if you are trying to run a business. If you are in management, it is most difficult to make your prices meet your costs. Yet, in the record, for all of us to read, we find the prices of the chief commodities used by the British Transport Commission, including timber for sleepers upon which the tracks are laid. I was astounded upon reading the figures to discover that the price of timber sleepers had increased over the 1939 costs by 550 per cent. The price of coal for the British Transport Commission has risen by 410 per cent. from the same date. August, 1939, to 1956. Copper tubes, of which we use many on the railways in the construction of locomotives, have gone up by 270 per cent. and copper plates by 275 per cent.
I will not bother the House with any more figures. It is wise for a Member making a maiden speech to make it as short as possible, and I feel that I can close by appealing to the Minister, to hon. Members opposite and certainly to my hon. Friends to see that the British Transport Commission and the railway worker are given a fair chance. If we cannot come to any decision in relation to subsidies or grants, I appeal to the House to set the British Transport Corn-mission free. Give it a free hand. If it wants to put up prices, let it take the risk. If it wants to bring down prices, give it that right. Thank you.

5.21 p.m.

Mr. W. F. Deedes: It is my pleasure to follow what I believe has been a maiden speech by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs). We can all agree at once that it has been a pleasure to listen to that speech. It so happens that I made my maiden speech from exactly the same place in the House, and I have a very clear idea of what has been going on inside the hon. Member since about 2.30 p.m. He may rest assured that it has all been very well worth while. He spoke with assurance, with sincerity and with humour. If anyone had strolled in to listen to his speech, he would never have guessed that the hon. Member was doing it for the first time. I am sure that the Opposition have acquired a very valuable recruit to transport debates.
The hon. Member adjured us to read both Vol. I and Vol. II of the British Transport Commission's Report before speaking in the debate. I can claim to have read Vol. I, but Vol. II only in part. If we read only Vol. I, we can see that it gives just a little more than an account of stewardship for 1957. Between the lines there is a very clear delineation of the transport revolution which is going on. There is no need for me to stress the significance of that. I know that my right hon. Friend is seized of it. We should know in any case, after his speech this afternoon, his feelings on it, but there are always before the House so many pressing, immediate day-to-day transport issues that I think there is some danger of our missing significant trends.
This reshaping of the railways, the decline of the bus, the advent of the 44 million motor vehicles—according to this Report the number has doubled in a decade—and the 1½.million motor-cycles and the like, all these spell a very big transition, and a great deal of it is still ahead of us. I think—and no one can read this Report without realising it—that there is no field in which public taste, desires, and trends have gone further in outstripping our capital resources. That is one of my right hon. Friend's major problems. It is very difficult to see one year ahead, let alone three years ahead. I am sure that he does his best and I have no wish in any way to be captious, but there are two aspects on which I want to dwell which cause me disquiet.
First, the railways. Seeing all that has happened since Stephenson, and particularly in the last 50 years, I personally remain amazed that the railways run as well as they do. As my right hon. Friend stressed, the second half of the twentieth century has brought to the railways perhaps a far greater change and a far greater need to change than some of their critics are prepared to accept. In the light of what has happened, I believe that they have very little of which to be ashamed in this Report. I think that there are some who are a little too premature and perhaps a little too clever in their estimate of the railways. It is painfully easy to take the view that this is a declining industry and that it must cut its losses, and so on. Many people take that view. The fact remains—and perhaps this debate gives us an opportunity today to dwell on it—that we shall need first-class railways for goods and passengers for a long time ahead.
In terms of capital development, we are clearly doing our best to meet this need. I confess that I have no feelings of anxiety in this field at all. I may be alone in doing so, but I do not take the very large capital deficit, the debt to Her Majesty's Government, as the Minister put it, in any way tragically, nor do I grudge the capital that is given. It is a relatively small sum in relation to the vast historical operation which the railways are being asked to carry out.
I am much more worried about personnel, because in the long run it will be the men at the top and all the way through who will be decisive, and we have here a very big problem of morale. Nobody can live in a railway town or take an interest in railway affairs without realising that what a problem it is. It is very difficult to attract at any level the best and the brightest to what people realise is a contracting industry—and, goodness knows, we still need both.
All who are connected with the railway towns know that the old hands are the salt of the earth, but, to be realistic, a great many of the young men who have come in since the war are not of the same calibre. The very ablest young men are not attracted to the industry. The giant express at King's Cross, bound for the distant north, which still strikes a


chord in me when I look at it, is no longer the stuff the young man's dreams are made of.

Mr. Crollick: Why not?

Mr. Deedes: Because aviation and other technical developments have taken its place in his heart.
Returning to the question of morale, the approach to the affairs of the British Transport Commission of very many who should know better is utterly destructive and discouraging, and I regard that as a very serious matter. The pursuit of this industry and one or two others has for some sportsmen taken the place of what big game hunting and pig sticking was to our ancestors. I am a little tired of the armchair directors who sit back and indulge in endless denigration of the British Transport Commission, of everything it does and everyone connected with it. There are a great many of them who could not run a coffee stall in their own right.
It is fashionable to run down the Commission and its members. I think that we are extremely fortunate to have kept the members of the Commission as long as we have, and I am glad that my right hon. Friend has now renewed the term of office of the chairman for a further period. Someone said to me the other day, "What is the good of having a soldier in charge?" At least we can be sure that a soldier will remain at his post, and I am not certain who else would have remained at the head of the British Transport Commission's affairs under the kind of fire which has been directed at Sir Brian Robertson in the last three or four years. Military qualities are indispensable to one or two members of the Commission.
There are many other industries—I will not specify any, because it would be much too dangerous—who are not markedly more efficient than British Railways, and they are not criticised—at least, not so publicly. Why riot? I say bluntly that I think the attitude of a great many is affected by nationalisation. I think there remains the undercurrent of hostility to that arrangement. It is like the fool who says he can forgive but he can never forget. We can argue till the cows come home what else might have been or what else might be now,

but that will not bring the trains in on time. I think that the waters in which the British Transport Commission are compelled to fish have been very heavily polluted with politics. That may partly account for the size of its catch.
The only sensible attitude, which I know my right hon. Friend takes, is now to show an inflexible will to make work what we have by all means in our power. Regional autonomy may do a certain amount, but a change in the attitude of informed public opinion must do more. The railways have an indispensable rôle to play still. They will depend in great measure on support and some historical perspective from informed opinion in going through their future courses. I make a most urgent plea for that.
The rôle of the railways ahead is very unenviable. They will spend a great deal of public money on modernisation, and at the same time close a lot of public services which people feel they can ill afford to lose. Unless we understand what they are trying to do in relation to the gigantic events of the last 50 years, they have little chance of getting the sympathetic attention and consideration which they really must have.

Mr. W. R. Rees-Davies: I have been following with keen interest and agreement what my hon. Friend has been saying. He has immense experience on the question of informing public opinion. What steps would he suggest that the British Transport Commission should take in the field of public relations to try to get the public on its side?

Mr. Deedes: I would say what I began by saying, and I would ask my hon. Friend to note this, that a great number of people of informed opinion, who should know better, take an attitude about the Commission which is really indefensible. It is from that standpoint that I am making my remarks. What the Commission can do for itself is another story. In the course of a short debate I do not want to enlarge on it, though I could do so.
The railways are not the only victims of this very rapid change. My right hon. Friend knows the profound concern felt by some of us about the trend of affairs described on pages 54 and 55 and 72 of the Commission's Report in the


case of the public road services, particularly in the rural areas. In essence, we have the same problem here. We must maintain for a long time yet not only efficient railways but efficient public road services. Like the railways, the public road services have been greatly affected by the revolution in transport.
My right hon. Friend suffers from the fact that in a free economy the motor engineers have a free rein to turn out what they like but the road engineers encounter many obstacles. That gap is widening. One of my right hon. Friend's worries is that he will never be able to produce the roads to meet the expanding demand, nor get the vehicles in the proportions that he wants them.
We have been over the rural bus problem before. The Commission's Report makes very clear, particularly in paragraph 175, the extent of the decline in its public road services. On the other hand, it says that the maintenance, let alone the extension, of public road passenger services is much more of a problem. Indeed it is. I hope that no hon. Member—I know that my right hon. Friend does not—underrates the problem. This is not a farm lobby mourning local bus services to go to whist drives. It is much more serious than that. We are threatened in many parts of the country with a collapse of the whole system of road transport, leaving rural England more isolated than it has been at any time since the advent of the internal combustion engine. That is a solemn thought, and I wish to stress it.
There is here—it is part of a very big problem—an urgent need for long-range thinking. I do not want an inquiry, although, apropos of the debate, the National Association of Parish Councils, no doubt for a very good reason, has advocated it. My right hon. Friend's Ministry should know the facts, and I dare say that it does, but I sometimes wonder how far it can anticipate them. Goodness knows, the day-to-day problems are quite sufficiently pressing, but one cannot solve this situation on a day-to-day basis. I should like to think that my right hon. Friend had a top class statistical, planning and intelligence department which would be able to give him, say, a three-year guess of possible trends in all branches of transport. He

needs to be able to get some comprehensive picture in respect of rail, truck, bus, private car and this mass of small personal transport which is catching up on us.
The consequent action on that is not his alone. I will not dwell on this, but I would say in passing that the Chancellor of the Exchequer will have a very big rôle to play here, for he has to consider whether the present pattern of taxation, imposed piecemeal, in entirely different circumstances in present days takes sufficient account of our present transport needs and trends. There is a great deal to be done there. It is a cardinal factor.
Lastly, I should like to feel—I always hesitate to recommend any additional body of any kind—that there was some standing advisory body on which rail and road, motor makers and road makers, bus operators, and others could get together in order to give the Minister the benefit of their collective thinking. So often they seem to think and act apart, even in opposition. To anticipate this, my right hon. Friend must have a first-class intelligence staff.
We cannot yet see the end of this huge transition. It vitally affects the prospects of British railways and railway modernisation, and it will not be gone through without tears. Perhaps some people fail to give it sufficient historical perspective. I know that my right hon. Friend does not. Others may be too detached and take too fatalistic a view. We have got to keep up with it. It is not merely a social convenience. It is also a prime element in industrial success. Industry cannot do without the best transport system that we are able to offer.
What my right hon. Friend has to do is what all good motorists have to do—try to anticipate what is coming from over the hill. Upon his being able to do this a very great deal depends.

5.36 p.m.

Mr. James Harrison: These are what we call transport debates when we yearly consider the Reports of the British Transport Commission. The hon. Member for Ashford (Mr. Deedes) has left me little to debate because I think I can honestly say that I agree with everything that he has said


on this occasion, which is most unusual. Nevertheless, I think that we can endorse every word he uttered in his short speech. Consequently, I must proceed along other paths. I shall draw to the attention of the Minister one or two items in the Report which I think merit his attention.
I feel that I might preface my remarks by saying that I have had a long, intimate association with the transport industry. Going through all the sections of the Report—rail, docks, inland waterways, road services and catering and hotels—and observing the amount of development which has taken place and the money which has been spent to modernise much of the antiquated equipment of those services, it seems to me that we should all say what a good thing it was that we nationalised these services when we did.
Without nationalisation, I do not see how these services could have attracted sufficient money through ordinary market channels to carry out the improvements described in the two Reports. I cannot imagine what the position of the railway services and some of the kindred services would be at present if nationalisation had not taken place. Most of us appreciate the far-seeing wisdom of the right hon. Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) when many years ago he recognised that in order to make transport a going concern we had to make it a nationalised institution. That was my first impression on reading the Report this year.
When speaking of nationalisation in connection with the Report, I include the road services. Hon. Members will remember the tone of the arguments that were used when part of British Road Services was being denationalised a short time ago. We had the argument from hon. Members opposite that the industry required the entry of the robust, lively, businesslike little man, with his one or two lorries, possibly garaging them in a back yard, but nevertheless supplying to the industry all the energy and robustness of private enterprise. That was the picture that was painted to excuse the denationalisation of a substantial part of British Road Services facilities.
Paragraph 132 of the Report describes something of what has now been done in British Road Services. Quite apart from developments with mechanical loading and in other directions, there is one

feature which has been developed in British Road Services which could not possibly have been developed by any form of organisation in private hands. One of the greatest problems in road haulage is the tilling of the often empty lorry on its return journey. The Report tells us that the British Road Services traffic organisation has developed a country-wide teleprinter network to give advance information of consignments and to arrange return loads and meet other operational needs.
For the economical running of road transport, that is one of the greatest developments of recent times. The return journey by an empty or light lorry almost always entailed a complete loss to the operator. We should pay tribute to this form of organisation which has been made possible under the direction of British Road Services. It dispels completely the fanciful pictures that were drawn on many occasions when we were discussing the disposal of part of British Road Services equipment and facilities.
The second point in the Report to which I wish to draw attention is the introduction of the diesel services, mainly the local services, and to reinforce the view which has already been expressed concerning the development and continuous success of these services. I have gone to much trouble to collect the figures and can, therefore, speak with some authority of the area around Leicester, Derby, Nottingham, Lincoln and Newark. Since the introduction of the local diesel passenger services on those routes, the number of passengers has risen in some districts by 100 per cent. and in others by 400 per cent. That should give us greater confidence in feeling that there is still a substantial future for the British rail services.
My next point concerns the restriction of the services, to which several hon. Members have referred. My hon. Friend the Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) referred in his maiden speech to the effect upon the staff. The Minister also referred to the effect of the restriction of services upon the staff generally and he appreciated substantially the attitude of the staff concerning the great reduction in their numbers. That is something else which we should note and appreciate, because the reductions in staff all over the country will be a substantial matter


in the affairs of the unions and of the Commission in the few months ahead. We should appreciate the co-operative attitude of the unions and the staff generally in this direction.
The next part of my comment on the restriction of services is not so happy. We have recently been informed that the closure of the old Midland and Great Northern line will shortly take place. The closure of this line, running from the Midlands to the Eastern ports of Yarmouth, Lowestoft and elsewhere, will mean the loss of employment for about 1,100 railwaymen. The closure of this and of many branch lines and the restriction in a large number of the ordinary main lines services that we enjoy today represents a restriction in totality to the service generally.
Coupled with those restrictions in rail services, we must consider also the restriction of road services, because, as the hon. Member for Ashford mentioned, many road passenger services are being cancelled or substantially curtailed. This will become a serious problem in the near future and, for the first time since about 1850, it will completely isolate many people in the remote communities who do not possess a private motor vehicle.
I do not, however, suggest that the Transport Commission should be responsible for financing services that do not pay; that could not be done. I do not suggest that private bus companies should finance services which do not pay their way. I do, however, suggest that before many more months have passed this will be one of the Minister's major problems. I suggest that special arrangements will have to be made with the Transport Commission to run services to these uneconomic areas.

Mr. Norman Cole: What kind of services has the hon. Member in mind—bus or rail, or something else?

Mr. Harrison: Either of those. If, for example, a small private bus company is operating a service to an isolated village, I imagine that it could not be arranged for the Government to subsidise a company of that kind. I am certain that the only possible method would be a subsidy or special financial arrangement with the Transport Commission to run services which normally are run at a loss among

our isolated communities. I cannot see any other satisfactory financial method.
I know that in most road passenger services the usual aspect of the transport industry comes into play. In all forms of transport by air, water and road there is this factor of skimming off the cream. It has applied ever since there was private enterprise in transport. An operator skims off the cream and runs services which pay abundantly, but he will not run those which do not pay abundantly. This basic economic principle underlies the problem that is developing increasingly in sparsely populated districts. I am sure that my hon. Friends who represent Scottish and Welsh constituencies will support that point very strongly. The Minister will have that problem very much on his hands in the near future.
In spite of the fact that only hotels and catering and British Road Services have made money within the orbit of the Transport Commission, and in spite of a general loss, this year's Report is one of the most encouraging that we have had of late. It is worthy of the efforts which have been made by the Commission and the people engaged in the industry. It deserves the appreciation which the Minister has expressed of the efforts which the Commission has made.

5.56 p.m.

Mr. Ray Mawby: I find myself very much in agreement with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison). It is a great thing that when there are so many of us on both sides of the House with different degrees of experience there is such a measure of agreement on the Commission's Report. It is a great pity that the debate will be curtailed to a certain extent and that probably not all hon. Members who would wish to speak will be able to do so. I therefore will not delay the House unduly in making a few points.
I was particularly impressed by a point in the first-class maiden speech by the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs) on the whole question of signalling and general safety, and the feeling of all who are engaged in the railways that safety must always be maintained in the most highly efficient working conditions. Because I agree so much with that remark, and because I am a Member for a West Country seat, I read with great gratification paragraph 117 of the Report about


the developments which are continuing and the orders which have been placed for automatic train control on regions other than the Western Region.
The Report points out quite fairly that automatic train control can never take away the responsibility which the driver of a locomotive must always accept, but we know that it has been of very great assistance to the drivers in the Western Region. They have been very glad of the boon it has been to them. While many technical problems are encountered in trying to adapt some form of that system for use in the rest of the country, there are many people, and I tend to be one of them, who feel that there has been a certain amount of foot-dragging in the adoption of this A.T.C. system.

Mr. D. Jones: Is the hon. Member aware that there are many dozens of miles of Western Region main line which still do not have automatic train control? Is he aware that even the Commission's Report contains a frank admission that the Great Western system of automatic train control is not suitable for either electrified lines or for lines where there is a high degree of snowfall?

Mr. Mawby: I am prepared to admit all that. I have said that I agree that there has been and there will be many technical problems, but over this whole period there have been investigations and I, along with others, feel that there has been a certain amount of foot-dragging. All that, however, is in the past, and I welcome the fact that we have moved so far in developing the system and solving many of the technical problems of adaptation so that A.T.C. can be operated in other parts of the country. No doubt lessons will be learned from developments in the Western Region and applied in new developments in other areas.
I do not claim that A.T.C. in the Western Region is the last word and that necessarily it can be adapted for use in all other parts of the country. As the system is developed elsewhere, I hope that it will always be remembered that the objective should be to see that it is maintained at as high a standard as possible. Steps should be taken throughout the country to make sure that every locomotive has its A.T.C. system in full working order when it enters service.
The Report also notes continuing development in the use of the long welded rail. I was one of a party of hon. Members who went over to France to study the French railways. Most of us felt that we had no great knowledge of the technical problems, but I certainly had the impression that one enjoyed a great deal more comfort in trains which were running on long welded rails. I found later from the British Transport Commission that developments were proceeding over here, and I notice from the Commission's Report that it is hoped to install about 75 miles of these rails during the present year. The French said that there were problems connected with the sleepers used and with track circuiting and that they had found means of using a new type of rail fastening. That, again, is a lesson which we now have learned as a result of developments and mistakes made by others.
This is an example of one of those occasions where we tend to have the impression that we in this country are always behind in everything, whereas at the end of the day we come along with a far more efficient system. I hope that the 75 miles of rail which are now being installed will operate very successfully and that as a result of the extra experience gained we shall be able to do a great deal more by way of this modern development, so that more comfort will be provided for passengers and there will be less "hammer" on the vehicles than there is at present.
I agree with the hon. Member for Nottingham, North that if we adopt a modern approach and put over properly the use of diesel traction we can not only keep the traffic which we now have on the railways but attract a great amount of traffic by proving that a very much better service can be operated.
A change-over to diesel traction would have a great deal of influence, of course, upon many of my constituents in the Newton Abbot area. Of course, the gradual reduction of the need to service steam locomotives which is now taking place in Newton Abbot sheds will be replaced by the more modern depot of Plymouth, which will be specially designed for servicing diesel engines. This will entail many changes.
At this point I would like to extend my thanks to the officials of the British


Transport Commission, with whom I have been in touch, together with local authorities and so on, who have made it obvious that they want to take all the facts into consideration to try to ensure that, wherever the change is necessary, it will be as painless as possible to the inhabitants of the Newton Abbot area. I am glad to pay that compliment because at all stages they have tried to be as accommodating as possible in the balance they have to maintain in running an efficient service. It is virtually impossible, for instance, to convert completely out-of-date sheds into modern buildings.
Another thing which causes a great deal of distress to many of my constituents is the general policy about closing branch lines. I would be the first to admit that in these modern days there are branch lines which can never hope to be profitable to any undertaking. On the other hand, we all agree that we must try to do our best to serve rural communities, and in that light we ought to be as novel as possible in our approach to the problem. If we are, we can probably attract more traffic to those local branch lines.
I noted with great interest the lightweight rail buses, of which a number have been ordered and will be put into operation. I concede that it is rather difficult because, as the Report states, the capital cost of each bus will work out at about three times the cost of a normal equivalent road bus. That is a great problem, but I believe that by adopting a novel approach much could be done to to reduce operating costs to a minimum. I see no reason why the lightweight rail bus, which is running on a branch line through a large number of halts, could not carry a conductor and thus, in many cases, dispose of the need for ticket offices and all the usual services at present maintained along the route.
There is general understanding between all those engaged on the railways. That has been the case throughout this period, and it is continuing to be so. There is no Ludditism. Everybody appears to be working together to try to provide a good service in the interests of those who use it and work in it. I would go a little further and say that in my opinion, with the development in electronics that has taken place, there is no reason why we should

continue to have manned level crossings, especially on branch lines. A safety system of photo-electric cells would ensure that in emergencies, and in the case of vehicles breaking down on the crossing, the signalman would be informed. That also would tend to reduce the costs. There are difficulties, of course, because many people say that if freight trains are running on the same line, under the present system the freight train will be unable to pull up, but in view of the modern development of the vacuum brake system throughout the train the problem is not insoluble.
This is not completely in the hands of the Commission because there are rules and regulations laid down which are outside its control and to which it must conform. Therefore, I ask my right hon. Friend to do whatever he can to ensure that the rules and regulations are at least brought up to date and into line with the needs of this second half of the twentieth century.
May I also point out that the branch lines must always be considered as feeders to the main line services? There is always the problem that, if a branch line is closed, one may lose main line traffic, because if there is no way of reaching the main line station on the normal bus or train route, people may decide to travel the whole distance by road. Therefore, in all these cases I feel that where it is decided to close a branch line, a novel approach should be made to the problem to find the solution.
I realise that, even after all considerations have been taken into account, it may be found impossible to keep the branch line in being, and in those circumstances the responsibility then passes from the Commission to this House to take whatever steps are necessary to ensure that rural communities are properly served.
As I said that I would not speak for long, I will close by saying that it is a good thing that in this House we should show so much unanimity. We are, in fact, showing the same unanimity which has been, and is being, shown by all engaged in the industry, from the top to the bottom. This shows that the industry is being run by human beings for human beings, and so long as we continue along those lines we cannot go far wrong.

6.8 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: First, I should like to express my appreciation of certain improvements which British Railways have introduced in their services, particularly those which meet the needs of the eastern counties. The new diesel electric engines used recently on some of the faster trains between Norwich and London, and also for goods services between Norwich and Peterborough, will no doubt speed both passenger and goods services for the public of Norfolk.
I notice, too, that the success of the diesel passenger service on the smaller lines, both in other parts of the country and in Norfolk, is much appreciated by the general public. As regards a large part of Norfolk, however, it is felt that the recent decision of British Railways to close the old Midland Great Northern Joint Railway is something of a disaster to a county like Norfolk. This is not just a case of closing a branch line but of cutting off a whole limb. There are 180 miles of railway which are to be closed in sections in the next year or two. As I understand it, this railway was built and operated under Acts of Parliament, under which those who owned it were under an obligation to maintain a service, both passenger and goods, regularly over that track. Now the Transport Commission has said that the line must be closed because it is estimated to lose £500,000 a year.
This is part of a very large problem of rural transport, since this line connects the Midlands with King's Lynn, Yarmouth, Cromer, Norwich and other places. Agriculture and industry have adapted themselves to using the railway. If the line is closed, what is to happen to the area which it serves? It may be financially necessary for British Railways to close so large a section of line, but the Government should not escape their responsibility to maintain some form of public transport for a community which has previously been served by a railway.

Mr. R. Gresham Cooke: Does not the hon. Member agree that there are only about 150 passengers a day on the 180 miles of line?

Mr. Dye: The hon. Member is talking the most utter nonsense. On one small section of the line, between Lenwade and Norwich City Station, the new diesel cars

are crowded every morning. The railway carries thousands of tons of coal, coke and other materials. The hon. Member is completely misinformed. If the Government are relying upon such a source of information on which to base their attitude towards rural transport, they had better wipe the hon. Member off their slate straight away. Many passengers use the line daily, and it also carries much goods traffic.
I do not deny that the line loses money, but those who operate the railway could clearly show that over recent years traffic has been diverted to using a more roundabout route. When the line is closed, passengers who want to travel from Norfolk to the Midlands and who would have used the line will have to pay a higher fare, since fares are now based on miles travelled. If the shortest route is closed, those who would have used it have the additional disadvantage of having to pay a higher fare.
What is to happen to the 1,100 railway men—and the number concerned may be nearly 2,000—who will lose their employment, and what of the other factors which are concerned in an area like this? What is to be the position of farmers who send their produce to the Midlands and to the North? The hon. Member for Twickenham (Mr. Gresham Cooke) referred to 150 passengers using the line, but there are farmers who produce vast quantities of mushrooms all the year round and who supply the mushrooms, which are perishable, to the Midlands and northern markets, regularly using the line because a road service would not be satisfactory. Mushrooms are among the smallest commodities. Potatoes are far bigger and there are many other commodities which are sent to the Midlands and the North by this railway.
It may be the duty of British Railways to say that the line should be closed and it may be the duty of the Transport Users' Consultative Committee to hold an inquiry into the matter, but that is not sufficient to deal with the consequences of such an important closure. Most people in Norfolk hope that the line will not be closed, but if it is, what alternative service will be put into operation? Will the Government merely expect small local bus companies to provide a service to meet local needs? Will such


services be integrated with railway timetables, so that passengers who have to travel via Norwich or Lynn will be able to catch main line trains?
Rural transport must be regarded as essential to an agricultural community. Many bus services have been discontinued because they have not paid and many branch railway lines have also been closed for the same reason. Yet we cannot allow a rural community such as that in Norfolk to be devoid of adequate public transport. Does the right hon. Gentleman have a policy for meeting the needs of rural communities? Will the Government at some time announce, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nottingham, North (Mr. J. Harrison) suggested, that because rural transport services are essential, they shall be maintained, even if they have to be run at a loss for a time? If so, why do not they advance that as a policy now instead of deferring it to a later date?

Mr. Collick: I understand that it is the Government's policy deliberately to close all those lines which are unremunerative.

Mr. J. Harrison: They cannot do it.

Mr. Dye: They have already closed a number of lines, but this is the biggest so far. If it is the policy of the Government that vast sections of line should be closed because they are unremunerative, what is to be put in the place of those lines? The Government cannot leave large areas without public transport.
The Norfolk area served by the line of which I have been speaking has roads which are very narrow and winding. If a road service is to be put into operation, there will have to be considerable expenditure on the roads. If the Transport Commission gets out of its liability to maintain the line, will Norfolk ratepayers, through the county council, have to bear a large share of the cost of bringing the roads up to the standard which will be needed to deal with the increased road traffic, or will the Ministry of Transport agree, as it did in the case of the closing of a small railway, the Wissington Railway, to give a greater grant to enable an alternative road to be made?
If we are to take that as a precedent for the grants given to improve the roads

in the neighbourhood, the Ministry of Transport will have to visualise making very much bigger grants towards raising the classification as well as the standard of the roads. Norfolk County Council is greatly concerned about the matter, as are the parish council associations which have had to consider the matter. From many points of view we feel that it is time the Ministry made a clear statement of its policy about the position that will develop not merely in Norfolk but in rural transport as a whole—for agriculture must continue to develop. It needs the services of a good public transport system and it must have them. If the railways are to go, and we are to have something better in their place, we shall have to accommodate ourselves to the position, but we want to know what will be done, and when Her Majesty's Government will make a clear statement of their policy on this growing problem of rural transport.

6.21 p.m.

Mr. Norman Cole: My time is limited, and so, like hon. Members before me, I shall be more brief than I intended. I want to make three points. We are happy to see the encouraging Report of the modernisation which is going on in British Railways, to which reference was made by my right hon. Friend. If I may make a constitunecy point, I hope that the claims of the towns in the southern part of Bedfordshire—Luton, Dunstable and Leighton Buzzard—will not be overlooked in this developing modernisation plan, and that the Commission has those towns and that area in mind.
No reference has yet been made to paragraphs 176 and onwards of the Report. These paragraphs display what I can only call a complacent attitude on the part of the Commission to the present fuel tax. It seems strange that an organisation like the Commission, which has the largest road haulage fleet in the country and a considerable number of buses under its direct or indirect control—nat to mention its other activities—should view with equanimity the fact that it has to pay 2s. 6d. per gallon in fuel tax.
I would point out that, not improperly, the Commission has closed a number of branch railway lines, but if we are to


find a solution to the problem in the provision of rural bus services it is wrong that the Commission should be agreeable that the fuel tax should be continued to be paid by those unremunerative bus services in areas where the branch lines have been closed. On the general issue, in regard to both the road haulage operators and the bus operators throughout the land—whether or not the buses are owned by the Commission—some of us have been anxious for a long time to have the fuel tax reduced so that the working costs and road haulage costs may be reduced, but I am sorry to see that in paragraphs 1766 and onwards the Commission appears to take the opposite view. I would have hoped it would join us in trying to get the tax reduced.
What is the attitude of the Commission to the hundreds or thousands of buses owned by London Transport? Would the Commission not like to see the fuel tax taken off, with a corresponding lowering in passenger fares? I cannot find any reason for the Commission's apparent happiness about the fuel tax, and I am sorry that this reference to it should appear in this Report.

Mr. Collick: Surely the Commission has had enough trouble with the Government without raising that essentially political issue. The question whether or not the fuel tax is reduced is one for the Chancellor of the Exchequer. I can imagine hon. Members opposite being the first to protest if the Commission said anything of the kind in its Report.

Mr. Cole: In that case the quickest answer I can give is that it would have been better if the Commission had left out any reference to the fuel tax. I am cavilling at the fact that it appears to support the continuance of the tax. I am sure that in this large organisation, which affects many different aspects of transport and public amenity, the Commission realise, as, indeed it has, that it cannot adapt the circumstances of public life and the welfare of the people to the facilities which the Commission can provide; it must be the other way round. The Commission must adapt its provision of facilities to the needs of the people and I commend it for doing this. In short, the Commission must above all things maintain a flexible organisation to meet the needs of the people, and not expect the people to accommodate themselves

to the services provided by the Commission.

6.26 p.m.

Mr. G. R. Strauss: Unfortunately, we are all limited in our remarks today, and as many hon. Members have been cut out of the debate altogether I should like to mention that some of my hon. Friends who are specially associated with the railways have asked me, on their behalf, to express appreciation of the reference, in paragraph 62 of the Report, to the Commission's deep regret at the loss of Mr. Tom Hollywood and Mr. James Campbell in the deplorable accident in which they were killed. Their loss is a very real one, not only to the railway unions but to the whole railway organisation.
The Minister of Transport started by saying that there was a great deal of agreement among Members on both sides of the House about the work of the Commission, and a general desire that it should succeed. He also rightly said that there were considerable political differences in our approach. I would put the situation in this way. Hon. Members on this side believe that there should be the maximum practical co-ordination under public ownership, whereas the right hon. Gentleman and his colleagues feel that there should be the minimum of public ownership and the maximum competition. We put far greater emphasis upon the public services aspect of the Commission's work.
We have always opposed the Government's policy of harrying, restricting and disrupting the Commission in its many activities. The latest example was the Government's decision, not so many months ago, to cut the capital available for the modernisation plan. We know that the cut was small, and that it has recently been restored, but that action was typical of Government policy for many years past. That is the kind of action that we always have strongly opposed, and always will.
It is inevitable that the main feature of the Report should be the continuing losses of the railways. This is a great pity, because it gives so much weight to the one aspect of its activities for which the Commission is not itself responsible, and it loses sight of its many fine


achievements over a wide range of other activities.
Anyone who reads the Report can see what remarkable progress the Commission has made. It is only on the railways that it has to record—I will not say failure—an inability to meet its costs. That is not a phenomenon peculiar to this country; it is world-wide. It is worth while glancing for a moment at what is happening in other countries, particularly those comparable with ours. The European country most capable of comparison is Germany. Last year the German railways had almost the same deficit as the total deficit of the British Transport Commission, namely, £64 million.
The German Federal Government have been doing all sorts of things to try to remedy that situation. They have been restricting the licensing of road haulage concerns and they have taken other steps, such as preventing the movement of heavy road vehicles on Sundays. They have made road transport rates conform with railway rates. They are also embarking on a modernisation plan for the railways, rather more ambitious than ours, under which £2,000 million will be spent in ten years. But their difficulties are the same as ours and we find that similar difficulties are apparent all over the world. Owing to the great increase in passengers and freight carried on the roads, the railways cannot meet their costs. The Germans are optimistic that the steps they are taking will prove successful in solving their problems before the ten-year period is up.
Even more interesting is the situation in the United States where, though some railways pay their way, many of them show substantial losses and a serious situation is developing. The road-beds in that country are not being properly maintained and there is little replacement of the inadequate rolling stock of most railway concerns. The Federal Government have had to take drastic action to deal with the situation. As our Government are doing, they are granting substantial loans to the railways. Were it not for that fact, some of the railways would not be able to raise the money needed to carry out the necessary renovations.
Another thing they are attempting, which is rather surprising in a country

which believes so much in free enterprise, and I commend this to the notice of the House, is—I quote from an American paper—
to eliminate unfair competition from private truckers and from agricultural truckers who are exempt from regulations.
Many similar steps are being taken to try to remedy the serious situation resulting from the complete bankruptcy of many of the American railways.
Of course, the Americans are at a disadvantage compared with ourselves. They have a law which prevents the merging of any railways and which prevents any railway company from carrying on any other form of transport. It is largely for these reasons that some of the railways there are in such a bad way. I would also draw to the attention of the House the policy being advocated in responsible quarters in America for dealing with the problem. There was a powerful leading article in the New York Herald Tribune recently demanding that
Federal funds—which go into building airports, highways for trucks, and dredging rivers for barges—muss also maintain railroad rights-of-way as vital to national defence.
That is an attitude which has always been resisted in this country, but it is something which we shall have to consider one of these days.
In this country, the situation is different. Fortunately, we have, largely as the result of the nationalisation Act of the Labour Government, a Transport Commission in which many forms of transport and ancillary services are co-ordinated. The working losses on the railways have almost been made up by profits made elsewhere; and we have a modernisation scheme which we hope will make the whole transport system of this country viable before very long. But we are anxious to know to what extent the railways are in future to be helped by the Government or to what extent they may be hindered, as so often they have been in the past. I hope that we shall not get any repetition of Government cuts in capital expenditure on the railways. The previous cutting down should never have happened. If ever there was an industry which in the national interest required capital expenditure on a big and progressive scale it is the railway system of this country.
We have been told recently that a number of economies are to be carried


out. We have also been told that the Government will help the railways in one way, and I hope that the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will give us some information about this. The communication, issued after the discussion on the recent claim for increased wages, stated officially:
The Government recognised that the Commission had for some time felt that their obligations in these respects"—
that is, regarding their inherited obligations in relation to bridges carrying roads over railways and level crossings—
ought to be adjusted in the light of modern conditions, and they"—
that is, the Government—
would accordingly examine the question on its merits and as a separate matter, with a view to seeing whether any changes were justified.
What does that mean? It may mean a great deal or it may mean nothing. It may mean that millions of pounds a year that are now being improperly borne by the Transport Commission, will in future be borne by the Government. I would be grateful if we could be told whether they have come to any decision on this matter, and, if so, what it is, because it is a subject of very great importance.
Now we come to the question of economies. We are told that the Commission is to carry out considerable economies. Proper economies are all right and everyone likes them, but one can go too far. It is always possible to save money by economies. The Post Office could effect great economies if it shut down a large section of its services and did not deliver letters in rural areas, or delivered them less frequently. We are worried by the possibility that because the Government are putting so much emphasis on the need for the Transport Commission to balance its Budget in 1962, so-called economies will be made which will render the railways far less of a service than they are today, or, alternatively, that the position of the railwaymen will be seriously damaged. We say it is wrong that either the railwaymen or the travelling public should suffer because the railways, temporarily and for reasons which are world-wide in their application, cannot pay their way.
We shall therefore watch with interest what economies the Commission is being asked to carry out. We have been told by the Minister today that any branch

line which cannot be made remunerative will be closed down. That is an entirely wrong principle. Perhaps the Joint Parliamentary Secretary will qualify that statement. This is a public service that we are discussing. It is essential that some lines should be operated even though they do not pay, just as the Post Office or any other public service provides facilities which do not pay. To cut down a service solely on the grounds that some parts of it do not pay is wholly wrong, unless the Commission is satisfied that there are alternative facilities in the area which can conveniently meet the public need. We fear that far too much cutting down of the service may be done and that the national interest will suffer.
I have not the time to say anything further except that, while inevitably we are in doubt about Government policy during the next few years—if this Government remain in office so long—particularly about what future cuts in the service they will make, we all welcome this annual Report and congratulate those responsible for it. In spite of what has been said, I believe that the staff on the railways is not only very good now, but that the best technicians are being recruited into its ranks. There is no doubt that on the railways in particular there is a loyalty, keenness, enthusiasm and family feeling among the men working on the lines which is probably greater than in any other industry in the country.
We have in this Report a record of magnificent technical progress and achievement. It gives us a promise of even greater service to the nation by the Commission and by all who work with it in the years to come when the modernisation plans have been completed.

6.42 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Transport and Civil Aviation (Mr. Airey Neave): Had it been possible to have a longer debate, many hon. Members would have wanted to mention other activities of the British Transport Commission than railways. I shall place emphasis on many railways matters in the time at my disposal but, in fairness to the Commission and to those who work in the docks, on inland waterways and in British Road Services, I shall mention that work. I do not think that many hon. Members have


made points about it, but I hope that the House will accept the reasons why I shall do so.
Most of the economic problems of the railways have been widely covered but there are questions which I intend to answer such as those dealing with railway workshop policy. I will talk also about the closing of unremunerative services and in particular about certain new procedures for the Transport Users' Consultative Committees, which I wish to announce. The right hon. Member for Vauxhall (Mr. Strauss) raised important points about maintaining bridges and roads over level crossings. I will try to deal with that subject.
We had the pleasure today of hearing for the first time the hon. Member for St. Helens (Mr. Spriggs), who made a most excellent and agreeable speech. He will be a great addition to our transport debates because of his personal knowledge of the work that is done on the railways. I felt very strongly that the House was very much with him, and most certainly regarding the sensible attitude that his trade union is taking up to the economics of modernisation on the railways. Of course, he made some good constituency points as well, very properly. We noted that he needed a new railway station at Shaw Street. He referred to the Royal Regiment of Artillery, which certainly appealed to me.
There has been mention of differences of political approach. I feel that I ought not to go into that now, but that I should deal with the severely practical details which I hope will be of interest to the House in winding up this debate. Generally speaking, the Opposition restated their belief in nationalisation while my right hon. Friend the Minister of Transport stated his belief in a businesslike approach and structure for the railways and the British Transport Commission generally, and in competition.
The other thing I want to mention before I start on other matters is the tribute paid to Sir Brian Robertson. I am sure that the House will join with me in saying that Sir Brian Robertson, as somebody else has said, has always stuck to his guns under heavy fire and that he has been doing an excellent job

together with all those who work for him.
The results of 1957 contained a number of disappointments. It is much too early to be pessimistic about the Commission's ability to break even by 1961 or 1962, as I think some hon. Members have been. There are two main ways in which the Commission can tackle its problems. The first is by pressing ahead with modernisation. Chapter 4 of the Report for 1957 on Research and Development is worth examining because it is crammed with detailed evidence of progress in modernisation, which will be welcomed. The second way, on which controversial points have been made today, is the elimination from the system of what might be called "uneconomic elements" that have no place in a modern system.
In relating that point to the detailed points which I said I would mention, I would ask hon. Members to bear certain things in mind. We are not dealing with the twilight of the railways; nothing of the kind. We are concerned with a period when economies will have to be made as a preliminary operation to jumping off into a new and, we hope, successful era.
I was asked about the workshop policy of the Commission. It is always the desire of the Commission to see that its railway workshops are as fully occupied as possible, consistent with changing requirements as to repairs and new construction. In 1956, the Commission published a statement of its intentions and gave a forecast of the position over the ensuing five years. Up to the present the position has not changed. It is worth noting that roughly as many people are employed in the railway workshops as two years ago. The number is 126,129, against 126,233. The Commission realises that although some redundancy may arise it must be a good employer. It has already said that it is willing to train men for other crafts within the railway industry if this will help to absorb them.
As to new construction, all or most of the railway works will be kept busy to the limits of their existing resources for some time to come. In the longer term, as the total volume of work begins to fall the Commission will have to be more selective in placing orders. It will have to pay more regard to variations in costs. In regard to the number of vehicles that


will be required, such as freight wagons and service vehicles, this programme may be subject to cuts in 1958 and 1959 by reason of the Commission's decision to reduce its wagon fleet. We are well aware of these problems and they are being tackled.
The hon. Member for The Hartlepools (Mr. D. Jones) asked me to deal with staff questions in general and to answer the point which he made that the Report showed an overall increase in staff of 3,033. That reflects the filling of vacancies in certain key operating grades, where shortages had persisted for some time. At the end of June, 1958, the staff employed on British Railways was 566,500, a reduction of roughly 12,500 on the total employed a year previously. The explanation was that there were recruited into certain key grades 3,033 staff to fill that special type of vacancy.
The closing of unremunerative services naturally attracted the attention of the House. We have in the past had criticisms of the procedure of the consultative committees. That is an important point, although has not been mentioned today, and I would ask for time just to say that the consultative committees are in the process of some fairly radical changes in their procedure.
The changes in procedure, which we have introduced with the full co-operation of the British Transport Commission are as follows. I cannot give them in very great detail but they are, briefly, that the Commission will, in future, submit, in support of proposals to withdraw services, a break-down of the figures of the direct, actual savings to be achieved, so that that position is made clear. That will remove the suspicion that a withdrawal is based on any false appreciation of the economics. Every possible information will be supplied to the committees. Secondly, the committees will form, panels to deal with cases between their regular meetings, and recommendations will be sent to the Central Transport Consultative Committee and to the Minister.
Thirdly, the time for objections to this committee will be limited to a maximum of two months, which should be ample, in our view. The Central Transport Consultative Committee is issuing a booklet. I know that there have been comments about the work of these committees

and I thought I should mention those matters.
One particular line affecting the constituents of the hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) is the Midland and Great Northern. I do not think that I should state a view on this matter at the moment because it may come to my right hon. Friend for decision, but the hon. Gentleman will be aware that proposals for each stage will go to the appropriate area transport users consultative committee, and the position here—I will state the view to this extent—is that this line is largely duplicated by alternative services. However, as I say, the matter may come eventually to my right hon. Friend, and I do not think it right to say anything further about it now.
The right hon. Member for Vauxhall asked me to say something about the pushing forward of modernisation of road bridges and level crossings, in particular the maintenance of road bridges over railways and level crossings. The examination of this matter is going on very actively. I cannot now make a further statement beyond what has been said already. The Government have recognised the need to accelerate matters. The whole question is being examined in relation to our general policy of highway modernisation and making it easier for modern railway standards to be applied to these bridges and crossings. There is no question of relieving the Commission of its legal liabilities in this respect, but we shall have to consider the cost of the whole process. That is as much as I can tell the right hon. Gentleman at this stage.
Rural transport figured in a number of speeches, as indeed it properly should. My right hon. Friend has rural transport under very active consideration and he realises the importance of it to rural communities in general. I wish I could pursue the matter further, but I think that I really ought now to tackle some of the subjects which have not been raised in the debate.
A great many people, of course, will be concerned with the British Transport Commission's docks. There was a profit in 1957 of £2,433,000 on the Commission's docks, harbours and wharves, which is to be compared with a profit of £817,000 in 1951, which was the first year in which the Commission's docks and


wharves showed a profit. Compared with 1956 the main increases in imports, in ores, particularly iron ores, in oil and mineral and motor spirit, were partly offset by reductions in imports of coal. Exports, particularly of coal, decreased, as no doubt hon. Members particularly concerned with the Welsh ports will know. The total trade of each group of the docks, except the Scottish and North Eastern group has somewhat decreased. I answered an Adjournment debate about one of the South Wales docks, Cardiff Docks, last night.
There is a number of schemes in progress in the Commission's docks, and, during 1957, there were many cases of new installations, for instance, new cranes and grain elevators at the King George Dock, Hull, and the reconstruction of the Riverside Quay and the south side of Albert Dock. A good deal of work has been put in hand at Newport and also at Swansea and Barry. It is the Commission's policy to proceed as far as it can with the development of these docks.
There are two other matters which I ought to mention, although they have not been raised, because I think they are of great importance to those who work for this fine organisation, the British Transport Commission. British Road Services was mentioned a good deal by the hon. Member for Enfield, East (Mr. Ernest Davies). The tonnage carried by the British Road Services group of companies in 1957 was slightly less than it was in 1956. This was partly due to the loss of traffic during the early part of the year, when, as we know, fuel rationing was in force. The road haulage capacity of the country in 1957 was, in fact, greater than the total volume of goods offered for transport by road. The rates were, consequently, kept at a low level, which, I think, will arouse a certain amount of satisfaction. In this fiercely competitive climate, the British Road Services group did well, I think, as the hon. Member for Enfield, East said, to earn net receipts of £2·8 million, subject to interest and other central charges, which is £1 million better than it did in 1956. It represents 2 per cent. more of gross receipts than in that year.
This result reflects the tightening up of the organisation following the end of disposals and the stabilisation of

the size of the fleet. It does credit to the improved efficiency and economy of operations by the British Road Services companies in meeting the challenge of competition. I do not think that I need go into the political argument which is involved in this question of competition, but I want to answer my hon. Friend the Member for Bromsgrove (Mr. Dance). My hon. Friend mentioned one or two matters and the particular point I wish to make in reply to him is that goods services timetables have been introduced in all the regions. I do not know whether I was expected to answer some of the other things he said, but that was something specific which I had in mind to answer at this time, and I hope that what I have said will satisfy him.
The Commission's inland waterways, another of its freight-carrying activities, have reacted a little, I am afraid, to the falling off of activity in the heavy industries. All classes of traffic on the waterways are running below last year's level in terms of tonnage, being 8·7 per cent. down on last year in the four weeks ended 15th June, 1958. But some hauls must have increased in length, for the net ton miles of coal class traffic and general merchandise show a small increase over last year in that period. Future policy for the waterways will have to be considered in relation to the Bowes Committee Report, of which some hon. Gentlemen will be aware. When the Bowes Report has been further studied—it is to be published next week—no doubt something will follow in the way of decision in regard to our waterways.
I wish now to say a word about the hotels and catering services, because this is one of the things in which the British Transport Commission has done very well. It had a good year in 1957. The number of visitors in the Commission's hotels was above last year's level. In the four weeks ending 15th June, 1958, the number was about 1·4 per cent. more than last year. I am sorry to say that meals served in refreshment cars are now running below the level of last year, when the total business increased, but considerable advances have been made in the catering services. I am glad to report also, since this is something else with which the British Transport Commission is concerned, that Messrs. Thos. Cook and Son had very good results in 1957.
I have to close very shortly a debate which is important and of interest to all of us, though we regret that it has had to be curtailed. We all feel a sense of good will to all those who work in the British Transport Commission and we certainly do not feel that there is any cause for despondency about its future. With a fair wind and opportunity, there is no reason at all why the British Transport Commission should not develop as a financially sound organisation. The framework is now set for it. There are signs that the revolution on the railways will be accomplished quickly and smoothly within it.
Financial difficulties for the railways, after all, are not peculiar to this country. All over the world, with few exceptions, railways have had financial difficulties. The nation also must play its part in these matters and, as my right hon. Friend said, it must have a proper regard for transport economics. I say that particularly to businessmen and people who are concerned with the standard of service being offered by the railways. We would ask traders to look very closely at what the railways can offer before embarking, perhaps, on other arrangements which may prove expensive. The railways organisation is in no sense a lame dog to be helped over a stile. The railways have great opportunities. Their way ahead is clear, and the Commission does not itself regard the course as too stiff for it or its prospects as unpromising. The debate has been a very useful one, although we now have to consider other and more urgent matters. I thank all hon. Members for the suggestions they have made about the future of the British Transport Commission.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That this House takes note of the Tenth Annual Report, Statement of Accounts and Statistics of the British Transport Commission for 1957.

JORDAN

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Mr. Heath.]

7.1 p.m.

The Prime Minister (Mr. Harold Macmillan): When I spoke to the House last night I hoped that the situation in Jordan, critical and threatening though it appeared to be, could be held stable for a further period. This would at least have allowed the Foreign Secretary to complete the consultations about the whole situation in the Middle East which he is now having in Washington. But events moved too fast. I will tell the House exactly what happened.
It was not until five minutes before I ended my speech in the debate last night that my Private Secretary, who was in the Official Box, was told that an urgent telegram had arrived from Amman. A copy of it, decoded, in manuscript was given to me as I was about to go home with my wife from the debate.
That was the first I heard of this appeal for help, and I immediately summoned a Cabinet meeting. Because some of the Ministers had dispersed from the House, this did not in fact begin until round about 11 o'clock. The Service Ministers and the Chiefs of Staff were present. Our final conclusions were reached after a discussion of nearly three hours, in the course of which there were naturally some adjournments, and I had to make two communications by telephone to Washington.
I will not repeat the subsequent facts, the nature of the appeal and the Government's decision, which I have already stated to the House earlier today. But I thought that the House would like me to give it the latest position, which is that following the arrival of a small advance party this morning further landings on Amman airfield are now in progress and the build up of our assistance is proceeding satisfactorily. Initially we are flying in about 2,000 troops of the Parachute Brigade. Meanwhile, I am informed that the situation in Jordan is quiet. In the light of circumstances, we will decide whether that number requires increasing.
As I said to the House yesterday, in all these questions of great difficulty and


gravity it is necessary to consider both the legal and the moral aspects, and also the wisdom of any action, or inaction. Legally, there can be no doubt that We were absolutely justified in acceding to the Jordanian request. Morally, I would say that we were bound in honour to go to the help of a small and friendly country whom we have helped so much in the past.
I hope that the House will bear with me if I rehearse again some of the arguments which I deployed yesterday in the different context of Lebanon. The situations are, indeed, similar although not identical. The similarity consists in that in both cases legitimate, friendly Governments requested military assistance from their friends so as to enable them to preserve the independence and integrity of their countries. In both cases, these small countries were threatened with aggression organised from outside, and from the same source in both cases.
The action amounted to aggression in the most formal sense of this word. It is a word which has the sanction of the Resolution of the Assembly, No. 380 (v) in the year 1950, which runs:
The General Assembly,
Condemning the intervention of a State in the internal affairs of another State for the purpose of changing its legally established Government by the threat or use of force,
Solemnly reaffirms that, whatever the weapons used, any aggression, whether committed openly or by fomenting civil strife in the interest of a Foreign Power, or otherwise, is the gravest of all crimes against peace and security throughout the world;
What is different in the case of the Lebanon is that the subversive forces had brought about a situation approaching civil war, whereas in Jordan the atmosphere was outwardly calm. In the Lebanon, the situation had already been brought to the notice of the United Nations and the United Nations Observer Group was in position, whereas in Jordan no such appeal had yet been made.
There was one further difference: the threat to the Lebanon was indeed imminent and grave, but perhaps of a somewhat general character. In Jordan, however, there was precise information of a definite plot whose foreign authors had ordered it into operation today. This was the information whch the Jordanian

Government communicated to us last night and of which we had independent corroboration from various sources.
When I told the hon. Members yesterday that we had evidence of subversion and foreign intervention in the Lebanon, I asked the House to accept my word for it, and I think that any right hon. Gentleman who has held high office will take my word for it. At any rate, the information which we had has been largely confirmed by a broadcast from Bagdad radio announcing a revolution in Jordan. This is what it said:
A revolution has started in Iraq and one in the Lebanon, and tomorrow another revolution will start in Jordan.
It was in the light of all this that we had to make our decision last night. What were we to do? Appeal to the United Nations? But that would not have stopped a plot so confidently predicted on the Bagdad radio. Shrugged our shoulders, passed by, and said, "Well, it is not our affair."
As I said yesterday, the temptations to inaction can be very great. An appeal to the United Nations is being made by the Jordanian Government today, asking that the Council should immediately consider a complaint by the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan of interference in its domestic affairs by the United Arab Republic. We, too, in a manner similar to that adopted by our American allies, after taking immediate, emergency action, are reporting our action to the United Nations and suggesting proposals for the future. The preliminary discussions will no doubt be taken shortly.
On moral grounds, it seems to me that the position is absolutely clear, and I hope that it will be clear to and accepted by the House as a whole. Whatever criticism may be made against our action, I do not believe that it could be held to be either illegal or dishonourable. Of course, as I said yesterday, the difficulties are very great in these decisions. The difficulty was not a moral or legal one; it was a practical one. The House will understand the military difficulties of sending troops to the aid of a country which has no port immediately accessible and of supplying them when they are there.
There is also the obvious doubt, to which hon. Members drew attention yesterday, about what the future would


hold. The argument of convenience in favour of doing nothing was certainly very strong, and I know that some hon. Members yesterday took the view that military action might produce temporary advantage, but in the long run would be sterile or even positively harmful. But the immediate result of refusing this request might well have been the overthrow of yet another small and independent country in addition to the melancholy list of such States which have suffered this fate in our lifetime. With the end of Jordanian independence, what other countries in the Arab world could have maintained their freedom? I do not believe that hon. Members on either side of the House really wish to see a dictatorship established in the name of Arab nationalism and stretching all across the broad lands of the Middle East. To help to preserve Jordanian independence was perhaps a limited objective, but there is reason to hope that by achieving this aim we may at least reassure the other independent Arab countries and States.
In making this decision, the Government were heartened by the assurances which I received last night from the United States. The Secretary of State assured me that the action which we were contemplating would have the full moral support of the United States and that he believed it to be right. Furthermore, the United States undertook, as an earnest of their good will and to assist the Jordanian Government to combat aggression, to send today a reconnaissance flight over Jordan to precede the landing of our troops. What final reply will be decided to the similar appeal made to the United States Government by Jordan will, no doubt, be a subject of discussion between the Foreign Secretary and the authorities in Washington.
It may be asked—and, of course, this is the question which I and my colleagues had to ask ourselves—in whose interests were we intervening? It may be said, should we not let this revolutionary movement take over Jordan as well as Iraq and, perhaps, other places, one after the other, and then make terms with it? That is the question which we examined fully yesterday. It was a question, as I say, of which course was prudent and wise. The argument for standing aside and doing nothing would be different if these movements were genuine, popular

and constitutional changes. But this is not a process of genuine evolutionary change. It is part of the pattern of conspiracy and subversion of which, as I told the House yesterday, we have not only evidence but actual experience in territories for which we are responsible.
What the future will be I cannot tell. But I believe that it cannot be worse than if we had merely stood aside and hoped for the best. We must face this problem as a practical and moral one. It is not right to abandon one's friends in times of trouble. It is not right to turn a blind eye to the fate of independent nations, however small they may be. Of course, we would have been far better pleased if all this could be left, as perhaps it may ultimately, we trust, to the protecting hand of the United Nations. Indeed, that was the original concept of the Security Council, with its military committee and with forces at its command, when it was planned to be the instrument for preserving the peace of the world and preventing things of this kind happening.
Alas, as things are now, this is the problem which presents itself and which we have to face. If we or other countries do not act immediately, then it may well be that the United Nations can act only too late. Moreover, because of the experience perhaps of the old League of Nations, because of the novelty of this great concept which was hammered out after the war, there is preserved in the structure of the United Nations the old customary right of action in a crisis in self defence. The structure of the Charter preserves the customary law by which aid may be given to a nation of the kind which I have described and in circumstances of difficulty of which we are all well aware. I do not believe that either the spirit or the letter of the United Nations Charter takes away the customary, traditional right and, I would add, duty to prevent disasters of this kind. If it were so, then the United Nations would not be the protector of the victim, but the condoner of aggression, and that is surely not what we want it to be.
A question has been raised about the precise position of the Arab Union of the Kingdom of Iraq and the Hashemite Kingdom of Jordan. Article 2 of the agreement of association makes it clear


that each member State of the Union shall retain its international status and its existing state of Government. Therefore, I should make it clear that it is to the Kingdom of Jordan that we are sending our help in this time of need.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition very fairly warned me yesterday that I could not assume that the Opposition would support the dispatch of British troops to Jordan to suppress the revolt in Iraq. That is certainly not the purpose of the small force which we have sent. It may be argued that by helping at the centre, the Jordanian forces would be released for operations further afield. I can only reply that here again, whatever the future may bring, I think that right hon. and hon. Members should have regard to the logistical and practical implications involved. It may, of course, be that the Iraqi revolution will fail or that a counter revolution will take place; I do not know. But our purpose is simple and clear. It is to prevent the revolution from spreading by this system of conspiracy and aggression to envelop Jordan and the Jordanian territory, and prevent its success.
I must add that, in making their request, the Jordanian King and Government said that they had no intention that the British troops should be used to release Jordan forces to attack Iraq. That obligation remains with them, and it is upon this basis that we have decided to send our help.
Sir, we have not a very long time for a very grave debate, and I do not think that I have very much to add, in any case, to what I have said. I have given the House what information I have in my possession as to the facts. I have tried to give the House a clear picture of why we acted when we took this decision last night, or in the early hours of this morning. It is, indeed, the most difficult decision that I personally ever remember having to take, or being asked to take, or being associated with. I do not know whether we shall succeed in our limited objective. I cannot predict to the House the future course of events. All the same, I believe that we had no option in what we have done, and I am confident in the moral justification of our action. I believe that the House, and the country, will endorse it.

7.21 p.m.

Mr. Hugh Gaitskell: Our debate yesterday was marked by a seriousness, a gravity and a calmness that was worthy of the occasion and of our traditions in this House. I am sure that, again, today, discussing, as we are, the new developments, hon. Members on all sides of the House, however much they may differ from each other, will wish to preserve the same sense of dignity and seriousness that was so evident yesterday.
That the situation with which we are confronted this evening is graver, much graver, than it was yesterday, would not, I think, be denied by any of us. It is graver for three reasons: first, because intervention by Western forces has been extended to Jordan; secondly, because, for the first time in this episode, our own troops—British troops—are involved, happily not, so far as I am aware, in action but with the risk that they may be in action; and thirdly, because there has been a Soviet reaction since yesterday.
I do not propose to discuss at any length the questions of international law. I dare say that a good case can be made out for the right of a Government to go to the assistance of another Government when that other Government believe that they are threatened with internal revolt and, still more, of course, with external aggression. Nevertheless, I would wish to make a few comments on the specific arguments put forward in this matter by the Prime Minister.
The Jordan Government, in their announcement, their appeal to us and to the Americans, have specifically referred to the United Nations Charter, and to Article 51. Article 51, of course, provides for the right of self-defence, or collective self-defence against armed attack. None of us, in any quarter of the House, would deny that there may be circumstances in which, in the event of armed attack, it is right and proper, and fully justifiable, not only for the Government of the country that is attacked but for their allies to go to the defence and assistance of the country attacked even before the matter has been referred to the Security Council. The Article in question, of course, insists that a reference should be made to the Council as quickly as possible, and that, if the Council so decides, then, of course, its decisions must be accepted.
But we have to ask ourselves whether, in existing circumstances, that Article can legitimately be pleaded, and I must say that I have some serious doubts on that. It may be said by some hon. Members, "Do we really need to worry a great deal about this?" I think that we must worry about it, because if other Governments, in other circumstances, are to treat the obligation of prior reference to the Security Council, except in the case of armed attack, as a matter of no importance, it seriously undermines the whole basis of the Charter, of the idea of international law and order; and, in circumstances where surprise attacks are the most dangerous of all, this cannot be ignored.
I must, therefore, ask whether it was really necessary that before this complaint, this appeal by Jordan, had been considered at all by the Security Council, the Government should have felt so compelled to take action. They believed and, of course, we accept the Prime Minister's remarks on this subject, that there was a danger of an attack of some kind from outside. The Prime Minister has not been able to give us—and I realise the difficulties—any precise details. We are in some difficulty here, on this side of the House, because subsequent discussion has thrown very grave doubts on the allegations of the American Government in regard to the Lebanon.
The House will no doubt be aware of the statement made by the Secretary-General of the United Nations to the Security Council yesterday, in which he said:
The Members of Council will this morning find before them an interim repot from the Observation Group in Lebanon, which they have sent by cable, setting out the complete success with which they have met in their arrangements for inspection all along the Lebanese border. The fact that this result—of which I gave a first, short indication in my statement yesterday—is reached at this stage, that is to say the day of the renewed debate in the Security Council and the landing of U.S. units, is a coincidence, the results achieved by the United Nations yesterday being the logical and successful outcome of its previous efforts. It is my feeling—
the Secretary-General went on:
that with the result thus achieved, the Observation Group is fully equipped to play the part envisaged for it in the total U.N. effort, with its general purpose of ensuring against infiltration and smuggling of arms.

If, however, the Government say "Well, it was not so much the fear of aggression from outside but the fear of a coup d'état internally," I must ask this. The Prime Minister referred this afternoon to the desirability of the aim of preventing something happening in Jordan that had happened in Iraq. What happened in Iraq was that the Army took control, and made a revolution. Certainly, it was a brutal revolution, but the basic fact here was the inability of the Iraqi Government to rely on its Army.
Are we to understand that it was the belief of Her Majesty's Government that King Hussein could not rely on his own Army? If he could rely on his Army, was the danger of the coup d'état so urgent that we had, in advance of the Security Council discussion, to send in our forces? If it was so urgent, because the King could not rely on the Army, are we not involving ourselves in a very dangerous position?
I do not make light of the very grave difficulty of being sure in a matter of this kind, but I do not think that one can quite dismiss it as a question of preserving Jordanian independence. The Government of Jordan, whatever our views of it may be is certainly not a democratic Government. It is not an elected Government in the ordinary sense of the word. It is a form of dictatorship. At the moment it is friendly to us because it feels itself threatened in some way, but not long ago it was not quite so friendly when it bundled us out and denounced the treaty which we had with it.
And reverting again for a moment to the other argument—the argument of the danger of attack from outside—on the evidence available to us it is very hard to believe that it was necessary to send troops in before there was any visible sign, at any rate, of that attack across the frontier.
However, it is again not so much the legality of this position which we question as its wisdom, and I think all of us will agree on the difficulty of coming to a conclusion in this matter. But I wish to put once more and in sharpened focus our apprehensions.
First of all, it cannot be denied that we are sending our forces, a small force


at the moment which may become larger, to an area with which there is no clear and simple line of communication. The only direct contact that we have is by air. Here I would ask the Prime Minister whether, in fact, the Israeli Government have consented to the transit over Israel of our planes and forces. There are conflicting accounts of this. I understand that a statement was made tonight saying that Israel had, in fact, protested against the use of the air above Israel for this purpose.
There are further considerations of a more or less purely military kind. Suppose—which we hope will not be the case—our forces in this area become involved in conflict. How do we reinforce them? How do we maintain supplies? Suppose—and again we all trust this will not be the case—they become involved in an even more difficult position. In what manner can we withdraw them?
We may assume, first of all, perhaps, that this operation is confined to Jordan. On that basis, however, I must again ask the questions that I asked last night about the American landing in the Lebanon. How long is it contemplated that our forces will stay in this bridgehead—if that is the word—in this part of the Middle East where they have been sent in order to preserve the existing Government of Jordan? Is it intended that they remain indefinitely? Is it contemplated that we shall have so stabilised the position that it will be possible to withdraw them? Do hon. Members—do the Government—really imagine that after this episode and in the light of all the background that we know exists in the Middle East, it is very likely that we shall be able to withdraw, leaving behind a stable, democratic and pro-Western Government in Jordan? I find it very hard to imagine that such a prospect is in any way a real one if, as my assumption goes, we confine our activities to Jordan alone.
Yesterday, as the Prime Minister said, we gave certain warnings. We admitted, indeed we registered, that we had certain treaty obligations and also that it was legitimate for us to intervene if it was necessary to save British lives—for that purpose alone. But, as the Prime Minister said, I went on to say that the Government

… must not assume that the Opposition can support or acquiesce in the use of British farces to aid the Government of Jordan to suppress the revolt in Iraq."—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 16th July, 1958; Vol. 591, c. 1264.]
I deliberately referred to that because there had been a number of reports in the Press that the purpose of King Hussein's forthcoming request to us was to enable him to suppress the revolt in Iraq. The Prime Minister has referred to the exact legal position. He says that this assistance is being given to King Hussein as the King of Jordan. But we cannot ignore the fact that King Hussein has proclaimed himself King of Jordan and Iraq. Nor can we overlook the fact that he has broadcast an appeal to the people of Iraq to revolt against the present Government there. Nor again can we ignore the plans which are reported that he hopes to advance into Iraq.
The latest statement on this, which I must say gives me some concern, is one that has been made by the Jordan Ambassador in London tonight. He said in announcing the fact that United States had acceded to the request by Jordan for military aid and that the arrival of such aid was expected at any moment, that Britain had been asked to send troops to defend Jordan's borders. But he added:
It was the prerogative of King Hussein to decide on the measures to counter the revolt in Iraq.
I do not imagine for a moment, and I would not suggest that it was likely, that the particular forces that we have sent in would be used for this purpose. But there is not much difference between that and the use of British troops to hold the position in Amman while the Jordan Arab Legion marches into Iraq.
I do not feel myself that the argument about logistics which the Prime Minister put forward is, therefore, entirely relevant. In any case, if the American forces are also to land in Jordan, I am not so sure that the logistics are as difficult as is made out. We are accustomed to swift movement in modern war, and the movement even across considerable distances between Amman and the Jordan-Iraq frontier is one that could be undertaken by armoured forces pretty rapidly, and, needless to say, aircraft will make no difficulty about it.
The Prime Minister has reported an undertaking of some kind given by King Hussein. It seems to be, if I may say


so, in some conflict with what the Ambassador from Jordan announced this evening, and I hope that when the right hon. Gentleman comes, as I believe he will, to say something at the end, he will try to clear this up. The plain fact is this. Supposing—which surely cannot be ruled out—that the Jordan Government decides after all—and King Hussein has proclaimed himself King of Jordan and Iraq—to advance into Iraq, is it really suggested that we could then withdraw our forces? We are fully committed to this thing now. That is the serious situation.
Why do we view this with so much apprehension? There are basically two reasons for it: first, because, as I said yesterday, intervention in Jordan alone, like intervention in the Lebanon, frankly does not make much sense even from a severely realistic point of view. I cannot see much argument for posting in Jordan for an indefinite period a limited number of British troops to preserve a particular régime in power in that country.
The country itself, we must not overlook, is singularly non-viable. When the union of Jordan and Iraq took place, many of us felt that there was a good deal to be said for it. It made possible, for instance, the movement of refugees from Jordan and it enabled the oil revenues to be shared. There will undoubtedly be in Jordan a considerable desire, if not to move the refugees, at least to secure some share in the oil revenues. The economic pressure may be quite serious.
The second reason why we view this with such anxiety is that whatever may be said against—I have a good deal of agreement with this—the methods which are being adopted by the revolutionaries, it is a stark fact that none of us can deny that no other movement in these Arab countries commands any popular support whatever. I wish it were not so, but one cannot dismiss the activities of the revolutionaries as a kind of artificial intervention in the affairs of the Arab States. As I said yesterday, we have to recognise the strong desire of these Arab peoples for unity with each other. I do not believe that this necessarily involves the domination of a single dictator—that remains to be seen—but that that tremendous desire and explosive force exists and is a real factor in the situation surely cannot possibly be denied.
One other matter which we cannot ignore in the present circumstances is the attitude of the Soviet Union. The Soviet Union has made a declaration in fairly general terms that it is not, and cannot be, indifferent to what is taking place. Soviet manœuvres on the Soviet-Persian frontier have been announced and there are reports of movements and of tanks and aircraft into that part of the world. This must make all of us view the situation with great gravity. The Prime Minister may be right in saying that it is a temptation to do nothing, but it can be a temptation to act too soon, too prematurely and precipitously.
As the days go by and the danger of a clash between Jordan forces and Iraq forces, and, behind them, Western forces on the one side, and Russian forces on the other side, increases, I beg the Government to pause and to consider seriously, even now, whether it would not be better to try to talk to the Soviet Union about the situation. Hon. Members may say that we will get nothing out of it, but if I am in any way right, if the danger exists, it is so colossal that we dare not miss any possible opportunity of averting it.
I know that these matters are being considered by the Security Council and we all await the results of its discussions, but I do not believe that discussions in the Security Council are enough. Now more than ever, some kind of Summit Conference is needed. I ask the Government to consider this and to bear it in mind in the coming days. Of course, it is not a matter to which one would expect any answer tonight.
I have tried this evening, as yesterday, to put our apprehensions soberly and calmly. Believe me, they are very real. What has happened in the last twenty-four hours has caused us very grave concern. We gave our warnings yesterday, we expressed our fears and it seems to us that these fears to some extent are already justified. For these reasons, we regard this latest move of the Government, however sincerely taken, as fraught with the gravest risks, both to our own interests and to the peace of the world.

7.45 p.m.

Sir Charles Mott-Radclyffe: I quite agree with the Leader of the Opposition that whatever may be the differences of view about these grave


events as between one side of the House and the other, it is right that we should discuss these matters with a due sense of dignity, a due sense of propriety and, perhaps, if I may add it, a due sense of realism.
What are the realities of the situation which confronted this House as we have been discussing it both yesterday and today? The pace of events in the Middle East which we have witnessed in the last two or three days is not controlled by the United Nations. The events in the Middle East, whose oil supplies are vital to our life-blood and to our industrial capacity, are not shaped by a group of well-meaning, honourable statesmen from various nations sitting round a conference table at the United Nations. They are being shaped by the assassin's knife and bullet.
As my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister has just explained to the House, the situation which faced the Government was one of choosing speedy action or, on the other hand, taking the more easy path of refusing to take action at all. There are times when I believe speedy action to be essential and this is one of them. Moreover, once action is delayed, there comes a point beyond which, if the action is to be taken at all, it becomes increasingly difficult and has to be done on an increasing scale.
When, as my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister described to the House, both the King of Jordan, the United States Government and Her Majesty's Government received information of an intended coup against that country along the Bagdad pattern today, I beg the House, whatever view hon. Members may take about this, to believe that it is totally unrealistic to ask the United Nations to help in that crisis, because the United Nations by its very structure and composition is incapable of taking speedy action. To say that is not to make any unfair or unjust criticism of the United Nations. To ask the United Nations to take speedy action is, in fact, to ask the impossible.
Suppose that the King of Jordan had confined his request to the Security Council and suppose, to take the most favourable set of circumstances, there were no veto used and the Security

Council met this afternoon and even authorised help for Jordan. How long would it have been before any effective help could have been forthcoming? Whence would the forces have come? Of what nations would they have been composed? How would they have been equipped? Who would have been the commander?
If my recollection is correct, it took over ten days before the first contingent of the United Nations expeditionary force landed at Port Said after the original resolution was passed. It took about a month before a force of 2,000 men was assembled at Port Said. Even then, it was able to function, if it could be said to have been operational at all, only because we and the French were in command of the base and were able to provide transport, food, equipment and all the other necessities of military life.
The limitations that are placed on effective action by the United Nations are only too clear. It has been brought out with even greater clarity in respect of the United Nations observer corps who went, on instruction from the Security Council, to the Lebanon a little time ago, with the express mandate to ensure, as the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) said, that there were no illegal supplies or infiltrations across the frontier.
How on earth, with the best will in the world, could a United Nations observer corps ensure anything of the sort? They had no force with which to ensure it. The rebels said to them, "You are allowed to observe only 16 kilometres out of 278". In any case, they did not observe what was going on in the night. There was no power to force the wishes of the United Nations against the wishes of the Lebanese rebels if the rebels decided to take that view. The Leader of the Opposition told us just now that the more recent report of the United Nations observers, which I believe he said was laid before the Security Council today, stated that they had now been up to other parts of the frontier. But I think that they were allowed up to the frontier to look at anything that really mattered only after the cease-fire in the Lebanon was agreed, and I doubt whether any cease-fire in the Lebanon would have been achieved had it not


been for the intervention of the American marines.
To wait for the United Nations to take action, and to place all one's faith in that and that alone, is really inviting anyone, be he dictator or otherwise, who plans a coup to go right ahead, knowing quite well that provided the coup takes place by a subtle combination of internal subversion, with a little pressure but not too much pressure from outside, country after country in the Middle East, as the Prime Minister said today and yesterday, can gradually be lopped off and go outside any Western influence at all. Yesterday, Iraq, today Jordan, tomorrow the Lebanon, perhaps Libya next week or in a few months' time, and so right along the North African seaboard. It would seem to me that the flank of N.A.T.O. would look a little strange were that process to be completed.

Mr. R. T. Paget: I am in sympathy with the hon. Member but I have the greatest difficulty in following what British interest we serve. We have oil in Iraq and we have interests there, but in Jordan, if we simply stay there, we are holding the ring for the rebels in Iraq. That is exactly what they would wish. If this revolution establishes itself in Iraq, does the hon. Member seriously think that Jordan has any long-term chance?

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: I find it equally difficult to follow the remarks of the hon. and learned Member. I should have thought that it was painfully clear that if Iraq has already been subjected to this sort of pressure, if the threat to the Lebanon had come off and if a coup d'état in Jordan had been tried and had been successful today, we should have had the most unfortunate situation, which the hon. and learned Member would understand very well, that the State of Israel, quite apart from other considerations, would be completely isolated in a geographical sense. All that we should have left would be Turkey and Pakistan and possibly Persia in the Northern tier of the Bagdad Pact. By intervention at the request of President Chamoun and of King Hussein in Jordan, Her Majesty's Government and the United States Government have acted quite rightly on moral, legal and strategic grounds to keep both the Lebanon and Jordan outside

Nasser's fold. That seems to me wholly right and I entirely support that action.
All that I was saying before the hon and learned Member for Northampton (Mr. Paget) intervened was that the process of lopping off one country after another all the way round the Southern Mediterranean and right down the whole of the Arabian Peninsula to the Persian Gulf must be halted somewhere, sometime by somebody; and the sooner it is halted the better.
I listened yesterday to all the speeches in the debate, and particularly to the speeches of the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale and the hon. Member for Leeds, East (Mr. Healey). Their description of British policy in the Middle East and their allegation that we were backing the forces of reaction and holding down Arab nationalism are sheer fantasy. I should like to ask one or two questions of them. Do they claim that Syria today is more independent or less independent than she was before she joined the United Arab Republic? Do they really allege that Iraq and Jordan are less enlightened in their form of Government than Saudi Arabia or the Yemen? Who built Iraq?

Mr. Paget: Iraq.

Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe: Who built the modern State of Jordan? Who was responsible for the creation of the modern State of Iraq and who gave it its independence, and who was responsible for the modern State of Jordan? Britain has a very proud record in this matter. I do not see the logic of the argument that the pan-Arab movement is all right provided that it is led by Nasser but all wrong if it were to be led by King Hussein.
I believe that the swift move taken last night and in the early hours of the morning by Her Majesty's Government, in conjunction with the United States, will have very wide support in this country and in many other countries which realise that subversion is just as much a threat as the more conventional and concrete forms of open aggression which we have hitherto known. I hope that our action in Jordan, at the request of King Hussein, may well be a decisive move in halting a process which, if it were allowed to go on unchecked, step by step, might well lead to a situation of almost unimaginable gravity.

7.59 p.m.

Mr. Sydney Silverman: I will not delay the House more than a minute or two. I do not want to enter into a discussion of the legality of the intervention of friendly Governments at the request of other friendly Governments who think themselves threatened, either internally or externally. There has always been such a right, and I would have thought for myself that it would be a poorer world and not a richer world in which the right of aid between nations was denied or thought to be immoral or thought to be illegal.
I remember days when I first came into this House when this question of requests by friendly Governments for aid in similar circumstances was not greeted by the Conservative Government of the day with exactly the clarity or enthusiasm which we have heard in yesterday's debate and today. I came into this House just before the Spanish Civil War became acute. There was there a legitimate Government which we recognised. Nobody questioned whether it was a democratic Government or not. Nobody denied that the revolt against it was sponsored and directed and assisted from outside. And the Spanish Government of that day did exactly what Jordan did last night and what the Lebanon did twenty-four hours before. I suppose it could be said that if we had responded then with the alacrity with which we have responded now, the world would have been saved twenty years of tragedy and 50 million human lives would have been saved. We did not do it, and it may be said against us on this side of the House today, "Well, why then are you taking the line you are taking now?"
I think the situation is very different now. If I thought the right hon. Gentleman the Prime Minister was right in his belief that these were not indigenous movements, that they were artificially created subversive movements, as the Franco revolution undoubtedly was, I would take a different view from the view I am taking tonight. However, I think we all have to recognise that this Arab upsurge of national feeling is not merely genuine and indigenous but is, on the whole, right. It is not merely that it is so strong that we cannot resist it. It is not merely that our intervention by force is likely to do more harm than good. It

is that our intervention in these circumstances is, on the whole, an intervention on the wrong side. That is one point I want to make.
Now I would like to make a point about Israel. No one has got himself into more trouble with the House of Commons about Israel than I have in my time. I do not believe that anyone in Israel, or any friend of Israel outside Israel, has ever believed that she could permanently endure in a state of permanent conflict with her Arab neighbours. The tragedy of Israel since 1948 has been that so often her immediate necessities have been in conflict with her ultimate interests.
I would say that this Arab national revolution, which has almost succeeded and will certainly succeed tomorrow—I am using the word "tomorrow" in the sense in which I believe it was used by Bagdad yesterday, not as a chronological but as a rhetorical term—is bound to succeed in the end, and that the end may not be long delayed. On the surface, on a superficial examination, this might be thought to intensify the perils in which Israel stands from her Arab neighbours, but I do not believe myself that ultimately this is so. There is no permanent quarrel, no incurable conflict of interests, there has never been, between Israel and her Arab neighbours, united or divided.
The great difficulty has been the Arab obsession that Israel is not a natural State existing in its own right but is an artificial creation of the Western world to provide a re-entry by a backdoor to the colonisers and imperialisers, as they regard Western nations to be, who have been thrown out through the front door. It is this obsession that has to be removed, and together with that obsession there has been the kind of perfectly understandable inferiority complex that resulted from their military defeats, unexpected military defeats, in 1948 and last year.
It seems to me that if this perfectly natural and legitimate Arab urge for unity and freedom is successful, we may dissolve this psychological, obsessional complex which prevents the Arabs from talking business round a table in realistic terms with Israel.
If it is true—I do not know whether it is, and I hope the Prime Minister


will tell us at the end of the debate—if it is true, as it is reported that Israel has protested against the violation of her air space in carrying through this operation, I myself would congratulate the Israeli Government on its decision and on its protest, because this may very well be a belated but realistic act which will enable the Arabs to realise that Israel is not their enemy and that Israel would be perfectly ready to play her part in a Middle Eastern federation in which all the component and constituent parts would share.
One final point. Against what background are these events to be judged? What is the proper criterion? What is the proper yardstick? Surely not the narrow, legalistic or juridical one. Surely we have to look at the plain, practical, commonsense of the matter. The world is divided into two blocs whose quarrel, if it breaks out into violence, will tear the world to tatters and perhaps bring the human race to final extinction in an act of universal suicide. We all know it. One does not want to be melodramatic or to over-dramatise the situation. These are the hard realistic facts, and we all know them. Surely the test to apply to any act of policy we take is: is this likely to make the situation generally worse or generally better? Does it make tension less or does it increase tension? Does it increase mutual jealousies, mutual suspicions, mutual hatreds, mutual fears, or does it lessen them?
Does the right hon. Gentleman think that if this had happened the other way, if it had been a Russian landing in some country, justified by the arguments and the juridical explanations which the Prime Minister has so lucidly given to us, that we in the West would not have reacted, and reacted strongly? Can we, for ten seconds, lift ourselves out of the climate of our own opinion, which is no doubt the right one, and look at this from the point of view of the Russians, which is no doubt the wrong one? It is a difficult operation. It involves the suppression of our own moral instincts and trying to understand moral instincts based on views very different from our own. But if we make that effort and try to understand what the Russians say about Hungary, which none of us

believes, none of us accepts, none of us looks at in that way; if we look at it in their way, is there really any way in which we can distinguish between what the Russians say about Hungary and what the right hon. Gentleman said about Jordan? Are they not both the same case? I am not asking anybody to accept the Russian view, but the Russians are entitled to look at things, as we are, against the background of their own interests and their own beliefs.
Here, too, there was a country in which there was a revolt. Here, too, there was a country where a Government had little popular support. Here, too, was a country where revolution was taking place with great sympathy and some assistance from our side. Here, too, was a Government calling upon a Government of a similar Power and with a similar outlook to come and protect it. Article 51? General international law?
I do not say these things in order to invite anyone to justify what the Russians did in Hungary. I only ask the House to look at it from the point of view which I have invited it to apply, namely, is what we have done a thing likely to lower tension, or a thing likely to increase it? Does it make peace easier, or does it make peace harder? Surely, if we do these things with these justifications, we must expect some kind of reaction, so that the two opposing hostile blocks are brought closer together with less understanding than before.
The Russians have just recognised the new Iraq Government. If the Iraq Government now does what Jordan did, if it sends a request for assistance to the Soviet Union tonight, and if the Soviet Union lands troops in Iraq tomorrow morning, will we be able to object? Will we be able to criticise? Will we be able to go to the United Nations and say, "Look what the Communists have done"?
If we cannot object, or if our objection, if we make it, is laughed to scorn, as it would be, what has happened? In the most dangerous part of the world, the most explosive part of the world, we shall have brought the two hostile inimical States almost into direct conflict with one another, in order to achieve what? The hon. Member for Windsor (Sir C. Mott-Radclyffe) said that we could not let one country after another go and that at


some time the process must stop. He tried to make a parallel with appeasement between the wars.
There is one fundamental difference. When Hitler overran Czechoslovakia, it was against the wishes of the Czechoslovak people, who failed to resist only because we prevented them. In all these countries about which we are talking, the revolution is impossible except with the active consent of a large proportion of the Arab peoples concerned. That is why they need troops from outside, and no sensible comparison can be drawn between the overrunning and the overthrow of country after country against the desires of those countries and the unification of a number of disparate countries, even by force, even by revolution, when at the basis of it there is the historic urge which ultimately is irresistible because it is based firmly and ineradicably in the hearts of the people themselves.
We take all these risks not merely to achieve nothing, but, in the end, on the wrong side. What the Americans did yesterday and what we did this morning is almost lunatic in its irresponsibility. Unless we can succeed in bringing these irresponsible adventures to an early end, we and not the Russians will be responsible for the world catastrophe which mill be bound to follow.

8.15 p.m.

Sir Hamilton Kerr: The right hon. Member for Leeds, South (Mr. Gaitskell) aptly said that the debate yesterday was conducted in a mood of seriousness and gravity. Today, likewise, the House has responded to that general mood. The House is often at its best when we are discussing these very great and very grave issues with each one of us searching his own conscience. While we discuss this great affair today, we ought to make it clear in our minds what we are trying to do.
For a few minutes I want to link my limited remarks to a phrase used by the Prime Minister yesterday when he said, "We are not against nationalism." How could we be against nationalism when each one of us, on either side of the House, is a patriot and jealous of the good name and reputation of our country? I suppose that each one of us

is at once impressed by patriotism in another people.
We should respect and befriend nationalism in any part of the world, so long as it remains within international law and does not seek to upset or overset a country's neighbours. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman), in a speech of usual eloquence, thought that there must be a difference between the present Arab nationalism and the nationalism which we found in the world before the Second World War.
Mussolini started as a good nationalist. Although we suspected him, we tolerated him so long as he raised the standard of living of his Italian people. However, his nationalism led to the attack on Abyssinia and the burning of helpless Abyssinians with mustard gas. When Hitler first came to power and entered the Rhineland—and I confess that I myself was one of those people at the time—people said that after all, if the Germans had been in Kent or on the Isle of Wight, we should have tried to drive them out and that the world would have supported us. However, the nationalism which then began its horrible career led to the attack on Austria, the overrunning of Czechoslovakia and, finally, that morning which all of us remember, 3rd September, when the tired, sad voice of Mr. Neville Chamberlain announced that we were at war.

Mr. John Hynd: I am following the comparison. Will the hon. Member make it clear by telling us which country in the Middle East has overrun which country in this case?

Sir H. Kerr: Certainly. In the next phase of my speech I will give a short description of that. However, I want to be brief so that I do not torture hon. Members.
When discussions were on foot for the possible evacuation of the Suez Canal, some of us felt that it would be very unwise indeed to move out of the area of the Middle East and create a power vacuum into which some other force might soon enter. We felt that in spite of world pressure and, indeed, American pressure, it would be better to hold our ground until our allies saw fit to participate in the Middle East and recognise their vital interest there.
Soon, the shadow of the Russian bear appeared in the Middle East. The hon.


Member for Attercliffe (Mr. J. Hynd) asked what countries have been overrun. We have seen subversion in Syria. We have seen an attempt in the Lebanon. We have seen a recent attempt in Jordan and difficulties arising for us in many sheikdoms in the Persian Gulf, and now the Yemen. Even more, as we foresaw then, our French allies found their position in North Africa extremely endangered.
What has happened? Now a great Frenchman has been returned to power in the crisis of his country's history—

Mr. Leslie Hale: Returned to power?

Sir H. Kerr: The hon. Member's Socialist Party voted for him. The hon. Member who so soundly defeated me in Oldham in 1945 might, if he had been a Frenchman, have voted for de Gaulle as a good Socialist. General de Gaulle, having a firm and declared policy, is more likely to reach agreement with the peoples of North Africa than the previous Governments, which have continuously vacillated on this matter.

Mr. Paget: The hon. Member was against dictators a moment ago.

Sir H. Kerr: At least de Gaulle's power is limited.
I now come to the last and more constructive portion of my speech. Among the peoples of the Middle East we should find natural allies. If we support the men who understand that the Middle East needs Europe and its technicians while we need its oil, an economic partnership could be started. We want only a fair partnership and a fair economic deal. Surely we saw in Iraq a country which had devoted half its oil profits to the improvement of its conditions.
The crux of the political tenseness in the Middle East is surely the situation of Israel. We all sympathise with the position of that long-harassed and tortured people, and we should want them to find a home with some security at last. But we must understand that the Arabs feel that the State of Israel could be the springboard for a future attack in the Midde East and that they therefore fear the expansion of Western influence in Israel. At the same time, the Israelis—as at Suez—feel themselves surrounded by an encroaching line of Arab hostility.
Now that the United States is committed in the Middle East we should

surely be able to reach some political agreement whereby the frontiers of Israel are guaranteed and the Arabs relieved from their fear of Israel. Surely at last we should be able to find a common ideology with the people of the Middle East. We are involved in a tremendous world struggle between the great forces of dialectical materialism, sponsored by the Communists—who believe that man must move inevitably through violent revolution to a climax of Communism—and the rest of the world, which does not accept this materialist doctrine—the Hindus, the Buddhists, the Mohammedans and the Christians. They believe in a different scheme of affairs. Certainly Mohammedans do not accept a material philosophy.
If we tried to make friends we should find natural allies amongst the populations of the Middle East, in a political, economic and ideological partnership, provided we supported moderate opinion and resisted the authors of violence who are trying to upset the whole political situation there. If we keep this fact clearly in our minds, surely we can extend the hand of friendship and walk together down a new road of partnership.

8.23 p.m.

Mr. Wedgwood Bean: There is always one thing which unites the House of Commons, whatever it is that we discuss, and that is the common interest we have in the interests of this country, particularly the interests of the British people—and, in a crisis of this kind, the interests of British troops. However deeply we may be divided as to the way in which these interests can best be safeguarded, I am sure that this debate, as yesterday's, will take a much more satisfactory form if we do credit to this extent, at least, to each other's sincerity.
I rise because I believe that both in the short and in the long run the Government's policy is open to very serious criticism from the point of view of our interests. I fully agree with what my right hon. Friend the Leader of the Opposition said about the immediate consequences which will flow from the decision to send troops into Jordan. The situation is not in our control.
This is a point to which the Prime Minister devoted no attention whatsoever in the course of his speech. He spoke


as if, by virtue of sending British troops into Jordan, the future course of development in Jordan and in that part of the world could be decided by the Cabinet in London. That is not the case. What we have done is to move a small British force into a part of the world where it will have no decisive effect upon the development of events.
I want to deal very briefly with some questions which the Cabinet ought to have answered last night, but which they did not answer—or, if they did, the answers were not given to us today. I am not a lawyer, and I do not come here with any claim to legal knowledge. At the same time, the juridical aspects of the problem are much more complicated than the Prime Minister would have us believe. As my right hon. Friend said, the central problem is the question whether we regard Jordan as an independent country or as part of the Arab Union. If we regard it as an independent country, Iraq is also independent and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) said, if, now that the new régime is established, Iraq chooses to seek the support of other States in the defence of its own integrity against King Hussein, an international crisis of major proportions will develop.
What is the position of British troops in those circumstances? It is not as remote a danger as the House may think. It is true that the Soviet Union has no direct access to the borders of Iraq. The only way that the Soviet Union could accede to a request for troops from the Iraqi Government would be to fly them over Turkey or Persia, and we might say that that would be an act of international aggression. But that is exactly what the British Government are doing today. According to the news reports, they are flying troops over Israel, despite the protests of the Israeli Government. It may be that the Israeli Government are protesting in order to protect their own future in the Middle East—and I do not blame them for that—but to the Security Council there is absolutely no difference between a British flight with troops over Israel to Jordan and a Soviet flight with troops over Turkey or Persia to Iraq.
The possibility must be taken a stage further. What happens if King Hussein, acting independently—as he is perfectly entitled to—decides to advance into Iraq

with his own troops, claiming that it is all one country, and if the Iraqi Army then decides not only to repulse that attack but to chase King Hussein back into Jordan? Would we regard the presence of Iraqi troops in Jordan as an act of international aggression? If we accept what King Hussein says, which is that Iraq is part of Jordan, Iraqi troops moving into Jordan are engaged in civil war, not fermented from outside the Arab Union. I do not believe that these problems have been thought out.
Another question which the Prime Minister never mentioned concerns the British community in Bagdad. What happens if there is mob violence, either instigated by the new régime in Iraq—which seems unlikely—or inflamed by reports reaching the mobs in Bagdad of the presence of British troops in Jordan? Are our British troops to advance into Bagdad and try to defend the British community in that city? We all know the consequences of the ill-fated Suez expedition. It was pretended that that was undertaken in order to defend the British community in Egypt—the people who are now denied even common justice by this present Government—and also to maintain the flow of British ships through the Canal, which, as we know, was blocked. I do not believe that the Government have given any thought to this matter. There is no sizeable British community in Jordan; it is the community in Iraq which may need our help.
There are other complications as well, because of the possibility of the Iraqi Government becoming engaged with British troops as a result of any of these things with which I have been dealing. What will happen if the Iraqis come into conflict with British aircraft? The Iraqi Air Force is supposed to be with the rebels. It is a force that we armed and equipped and, by Middle Eastern standards, it is efficient. What happens if it becomes involved with the British Royal Air Force transport planes, either over Jordan or, more seriously, over the air corridor we have taken for ourselves over Israel?
The consequences of this are very grave indeed, because, as has been pointed out in this debate, we are approaching the most dangerous situation possible—that of a world war by proxy, of the kind that we saw in Korea, in Indo-China, and which we have seen elsewhere. If as a


result of this action, British troops—and there are only a small number of them, very weakly and poorly supplied regarding lines of communication—get involved with the Iraqis, and Iraq brings in outside support; or get involved with the Israelis one way or another or are sent in a desperately critical effort to safeguard the British community in Bagdad, the responsibility will fall on right hon. Gentlemen opposite, and particularly on the Minister of Defence whose decision this must very largely have been. Therefore, we on this side of the House—this is the first point I make—in rising to comment critically about this decision, do so, first, because we believe that British interests, British lives, British property and British troops have been ill-served by this decision.
Now we come to the long-term consequences. It is a great mistake to speak about the Middle East only in terms of Arab nationalism. I wish to say a word about Arab nationalism. It is not the only problem in the Middle East today, but it is one of the major elements. There is no doubt whatever that the effect of sending British troops to prop up the régime in Amman will be to exacerbate and increase the feelings of the Arabs against the West in favour of their own unity and independence. I do not want to go into the history of Arab nationalism because I wish to be brief, but we have a grave responsibility in the West for the events which have led to Arab nationalism in its present form. We were the ones who in the First World War pledged them their independence; we were the ones that imposed the mandate system on them, with a treaty structure to suit our interests. We maintained ourselves as long as we could by force, and when we did not maintain ourselves by direct force, we used indirect force; and when we did not use indirect force, we imposed treaties by agreement.
We have seen the consequences of this not only in Iraq, in Syria and in the Lebanon, but also in Egypt and North Africa. When an Arab nationalist looks at his world today, he not only sees the Middle East, he sees the French in Algeria, drawing on Western aid to try to hold down the demands of the Algerian people for independence. It is no good pretending that the British Government, and N.A.T.O., and the United States, have not been supporting the French in

Algeria, because, without that support, without the fact that British troops were in Germany replacing the French, without the facts that American equipment was made available, it would not have been possible for the French to carry on a major war in Algeria. So the first long-term consequence of this will be that the Arab nationalist movement will be strengthened in the Middle East.
The second long-term consequence is the effect it will have on the internal revolution, which is one of the major elements in Middle Eastern development. Internal revolutions will be sharpened and worsened. Most of the Arab countries are developing slowly, according to their resources and history, from a primitive tribal society, through a feudal society, towards a modern society. This development depends on whether they have oil or they do not; what resources they have; and what development is possible in each country. If the feudal rulers of the Middle East feel that they can always count on Western support against their own nationalists they will always delay as long as they can any change in favour of modernisation. This is exactly what Colonel Nasser is saying: "While you have a pro-Western king on your throne, there will be no development and no progress because that king, that sheik, that sultan can, in the last resort, always call in Western troops and claim that there is foreign infiltration." Therefore, the long-term problem of the revolutionary situation within the Middle East has been worsened and not eased as a result of sending British troops to Jordan.
Then there is the worsening of the Arab-Israel tension—which in the case of the crisis in 1956 was the occasion which brought us near to war—and the Arab-Israeli crisis is due to many factors. One is that the Arabs believe that Israel is to be a base for the West. When we find, as we find today, that it is only by being able to fly swiftly over Israel that British troops can land in Jordan, we add to the belief of the Arabs that Israel is being used to serve the West in pursuit of our policy in the Middle East.
The only hope for peace between the Arabs and Israel is that there should be an end to competitive anti-Zionism. This competitive anti-Zionism has been continued by two things. First, the division in the Arab world. One of the


things which makes Israel's position so dangerous today, or made it dangerous last week, is the fact that Bagdad and Cairo, in search of support among the peoples of the Arab countries, always charged the other with being soft to Zionism. When Colonel Nasser broadcast to the people of Iraq and said, "I stand for Arab nationalism, unity and neutralism," Bagdad broadcast back, "Nasser is soft to Israel". That competitive anti-Zionism between Bagdad and Cairo is one of the worst possible consequences of the division of the Arab world and has made the position of Israel very dangerous.
The second competitive anti-Zionist element which we have to consider is the East-West competitive anti-Zionism. We saw it when Sir Anthony Eden made his Guildhall speech and said—in effect—to the Arabs, "If only you will be more friendly to the West we will cut a little bit off Israel for you." Then the Russians time and again have said that if the Arabs turned in their direction they would get a better deal against Israel. The only hope for the survival of Israel is to come to terms with a united and not a divided Arab world—and some solution to the East-West tension.
The final consequences of this action will be greatly to strengthen the Soviet position in the Middle East. If I were Mr. Khrushchev today and I were considering this situation, I should be profoundly grateful to the British Government for having gone into Jordan. Nothing that has been done since Suez could have done more to strengthen the Communist position in general, in the African countries and in the countries of the Middle East itself. It is exactly what the Russians always said about the West, "When it comes to it, the West will intervene by force rather than allow a national, local social revolution take place."
Whatever our answer may be, it will not carry any weight in the Arab world. The Russians have strengthened themselves in the Middle East by allying themselves with Arab nationalism. There is no reason why they should have done so. There is nothing particularly to benefit Russia in genuine Arab nationalism except that the West has been opposing Arab nationalism. It is the case that wherever we have built a

base or kept troops in an attempt to maintain our traditional position, the Russians have outflanked us by offering arms and economic aid without strings. By asserting that they were in support of Arab nationalism, they have been able to strengthen themselves.
Look at the Russian advance in the last few years. It has been extraordinarily successful. Today there are Russian missions in the Yemen, Egypt and Syria. Russian bases are being developed down in the Yemen and Russian pilots are going up and down the Suez Canal. That has not been done by force but because the Russians have been able to leap over the northern tier which we supposed we could establish.
A dilemma faces the House now. The Government put it to us in a way which was perfectly fair. What would we do? If you go in you fail, for the reasons I have given. If we stay out we must not think that it does not mean change. We know that perfectly well, by the revolt in Iraq. We recognise when we say, "Don't go into Jordan" that the régime will not be likely to last.
The question we have to ask ourselves and which Government supporters have to ask themselves is why Iraq, which had a model régime as far as this Government was concerned and was the thing that they created, should disappear overnight after an internal revolution? What was so rotten and weak about it that it could not survive the call of the "Voice of the Arabs"? If that voice had been directed to this country it would not have evoked any local response. That shows that it is not the broadcast that is effective but that what is said in the broadcast finds a response in the hearts of the people who listen to it. It has nothing to do with Nasser or anything of that kind. It is because what they hear from Cairo they think meets the needs of the Arab people.
The only hope is to try to bring about a Middle Eastern settlement. It is often said—it is said now—that the United Nations is no good. Why is the United Nations no good? It is no good because of the veto, we are told. But the veto is not itself a barrier to a settlement. The veto is a signal which tells one the truth, and the truth is that we cannot have a settlement in the Middle East without big-Power agreement. While we ignore the signal and pretend that the veto is


the obstacle, we try to solve it in our own way. But we have totally failed to solve it in our own way. It is because of our traditional policy that Arab nationalism has turned against us. The Soviet Union, in support of Arab nationalism, strengthens its position, and the Arab-Israel problem, which is so critical, becomes worse rather than better.
When my right hon. Friend spoke about a Summit Conference, he touched the centre of the problem. It is only by extracting the cold war struggle from the Middle East that there is any hope of a settlement at all. On limited questions of arms supply and foreign bases it is possible to reach agreement with the Soviet Union, a settlement based, of course, upon common interest. We must come to terms with Arab nationalism. Really, when I listen to all the talk about Arab nationalism by hon. Members opposite, I wonder that they have the effrontery to say the things they do. We speak about Arab nationalism in a superior sort of way. What about British nationalism? What it means, in practical terms, is that this country has declared to the world that, if anyone challenges our independence by force, we shall launch the hydrogen bomb. That is the defence policy of this country, a policy which is accepted, for the purpose of this debate, by the whole House. We then say that our nationalism is somehow civilised, ancient and superb, whereas the crude violence of the Arab nationalists in the Middle East is something to be condemned.
Really, the old idea of the British "nanny" who has grown old in the service of the world, bringing up the Arabs, the Africans, the Indians and the Chinese to maturity is an old-fashioned one. It does not work. It does not wash. It is not true. We are dealing with the people who have the most fearsome idea of all—they want to be free. We are told that we should have more propaganda. The Leader of the Liberal Party said that we should buy up newspapers. We are told that we need more alliances, and that we should broadcast more. None of these things is true. I will give a simple, practical example to show what I mean.
There are two or three thousand Arab students in this country. I know many of them, and I am proud to know them.

They love this country and this House because what we have here represents for them the freedom which they want for their own people. They are all pro-Nasser because they believe that, just as the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Woodford (Sir W. Churchill) was privileged, as he said, talking about his wartime leadership, "to give the roar," so the leadership of Colonel Nasser is the roar of Arab nationalism. If one wants to defeat Arab nationalism, one will not do it by more propaganda. To do it, one would have to close down institutions like this House. One of the most revolutionary things in the world today is this House, because here we have ventured upon the most difficult and dangerous job of all time: the attempt to govern our own people by consent. If we try to do this ourselves, can we blame others for trying to do the same?

8.43 p.m.

Viscount Lambton: The most relevant question in this debate has not yet been put. Will the Opposition divide the House this evening? We have been talking, so far, in the dark, but one can only presume, from the criticisms which have been made and from the direction which has come so often from behind to the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition, that there will be a Division tonight. I am ready for a contradiction if there is not to be. [HON. MEMBERS: "Yes."] Very well. What I find quite impossible to understand is how yesterday the House was not divided on the American landing in the Lebanon and how today it is to be divided about a British landing on exactly the same legal and moral premises.
What can this action upon which we are entering and in which we are now taking part amount to?
We have had various interpretations from hon. Members on both sides of the House. What it seems to me we have pledged ourselves to do is to come to the aid of Jordan and the Lebanon against the forces of chaos which are out once again in the Middle East. What the Leader of the Opposition and what the Opposition themselves are doing by dividing the House tonight is saying that we should not come to the aid of a friendly country when they ask for it.

Mr. Paget: Why does the hon. Member say "friendly"?

An Hon. Member: They put Glubb out.

Viscount Lambton: That is exactly the reason why we should.

Mr. Maurice Orbach: Because they are not our friends?

Viscount Lambton: I think they are friendly at the present moment. There has never been a question of the Leader of the Opposition not accepting this Arab Union, and yet when this Union is smashed, as it is at the moment, and when one half of it is in mortal danger, on the ground of morality we are told that it is impossible for us to move.
What the Leader of the Opposition is establishing and laying down is a new foreign policy. What he is laying down is the precedent that when people who wish to be our allies apply to us for aid we do not give it for fear of annoying our enemies. How, if we want to carry this out and translate it into practical politics, can Britain in the future have any foreign policy at all? What nation would wish in any way to be associated with us, and would it not inevitably mean the decline of any influence we have throughout the world? We all know the ability of the Leader of the Opposition and the quality of his speech today, so one can only presume that he has taken the decision he has done because he has been forced to do so by those behind him.
Having said that, I should like to deal with what is, I think, a very relevant situation in this matter, the opinion of many hon. Members opposite that any intervention is immoral. First of all, I want to say that I freely acknowledge the sincerity of all hon. Members who hold these opinions, but I cannot see how on this occasion they can be justified. Two years ago exactly this same position was taken up over Suez, and it was said that the British attitude against Nasser was wrong and we had no right whatever to invade Egypt. The trouble is that if we take the view that our foreign policy must always be based on idealism we become a sheep among wolves and very often confound the best intentions of the country.
The problem that actually faced Sir Anthony Eden over Suez was the curbing of the totally irresponsible ambitions of

Nasser which were a threat to our peace and ideals, and when we see the bloodshed that has resulted from that action not being carried out, one cannot but regret that failure. Today it seems to me that the problem that faces us is whether the Middle East is going to dissolve into war—and this I would stress—into which both Turkey and Israel would in all likelihood be drawn.
Can we really conceive that these two countries, both far stronger in a military sense than the weak mass of Arab States, can sit still with the Nasser empire knocking at their door and gradually building up strength? Here I should like to stress a point and ask what exactly is the position of the friends of Israel on the other side of the House.
It seems to me to be a quaint way of showing the friendship about which we hear so much at times to say to Israel, "You are a little country. We shall allow you to be totally surrounded by your sworn enemies and then we shall withdraw and leave you to your fate." What is the use of talking about a guarantee? The policy of hon. Members opposite is really to say, "We shall let you be surrounded, but we promise to come to your funeral." That is an odd policy for hon. Members opposite to have.
To get back to my original point, what we are attempting to do is to curb the chaos in the Middle East before it gets out of hand. If in order to do that we have to resort to certain technical illegalities against certain tenets of the United Nations, is it not better to act as we have done and save bloodshed and the establishment of a dictatorship? And do not the means in this case justify the end? It seems to me to be a case of relative morality. Although the technical view may be more personally satisfying and easier to justify, surely the policy which achieves the greatest good is the one which we must follow.
I wholeheartedly welcome the second step which has been taken to end the anarchy and revolution in Iraq. But I confess that I am very apprehensive about the steps that follow. What are we going to do now? I think there was great relevance in some of the arguments put forward by hon. Members opposite, although I was not in agreement with all of them. Are the Americans going to stay in the Lebanon? Are our forces


going to stay in Jordan and in all probability in Kuwait as passive onlookers of the rebellion in Iraq?
I should like to make my personal point of view plain. Unless we hold Iraq, it will be impossible to maintain our troops in the Lebanon, Jordan and Kuwait. It would have been far better had we never started this operation and never gone in unless we are determined to carry it through to its logical conclusion and end the rebellion in Iraq as soon as possible.

Mr. Paget: The Prime Minister says that he will not do that.

Viscount Lambton: I should like to answer a question which was posed earlier. It has been said that we shall not physically intervene and that the Arab Legion and the Arab forces of King Hussein will do so instead. I would look on this with the very gravest doubt indeed. I think that there is sedition throughout both the army of Iraq and the army of Jordan. What we would be doing in a sense would be to use these soldiers as mercenaries, and it would hide from nobody our actual participation in the affair. Nor would it lay the right sort of foundation for a united Iraq, Jordan and Lebanon, which surely is the most desirable conclusion.
Now that we have gone so far, we must go the whole way. The purpose of intervention in Iraq is to establish peace, and I think that with that end in view we have taken the steps which we have taken so far. We must, however, have the courage of our convictions and achieve our aim by the quickest way, by the use of the most efficient American and British forces at our disposal.
Here I should like to put another point which has been asked several times and about which I am not certain. In what way were we asked for aid by the King of Jordan? Did he ask as King of Jordan, or as a member of the Arab Union? This fact has not been made quite clear. We must surely associate ourselves with the Arab Union, and nothing would he more stupid, nothing would bring more ruin to the present scheme, than a long delay at the present time.
We all saw the disastrous consequences of a delay at Suez. If, at this present moment, we now try to delay in order

to please the United Nations, the international lawyers, the Iraq Army, and the moralists in this country, we will immensely increase the difficulties of an actual entry into Iraq. I am afraid that, owing to the poor state of our defences, we cannot do this task alone, but at the moment the Foreign Secretary is in Washington, and I very much hope that he will get American backing for a joint intervention as soon as possible. Without that, we shall have a repetition of the failure of Suez—

Mr. Paget: If the noble Lord really thinks that our defences are poor, he should have a look at the Americans.

Viscount Lambton: No one deplores more than I do the lack of imagination shown by us in our relationship with the Arab countries since Suez. In this last period of a year and a half, we should have abandoned that rather patronising, elder-brother attitude that we had, but surely this is the last moment to give up our responsibility in the Middle East. For can we really give the whole of the area over to a military dictatorship, should this be the end of our relationship?
What I hope will happen is that we shall there establish a free Government, and that we shall aid that Government with all the help and imagination which, had it been forthcoming from us earlier, might have prevented these very events that are troubling us today. Of one thing I am quite certain, and I cannot repeat it too often. It is that we cannot now go back. We have gone too far. We must go on. If we do not enter Iraq, it will mean a withdrawal from Jordan, a withdrawal from Kuwait, a withdrawal from Beirut, and the whole game will have been won by Nasser.

8.58 p.m.

Mr. E. Shinwell: The noble Lord the Member for Berwick-upon-Tweed (Viscount Lambton) has challenged the Labour Party to state the conditions upon which intervention might be regarded as desirable. There is not much time—my right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) is ready to address the House—but I want to satisfy the noble Lord's curiosity at once, and, first of all, I should like to meet his request for information as to our intentions at the end of this debate. Even if it appears to be unpopular in the opinion of


the public, we are compelled to act in the performance of what we believe to be our rightful duty. From that there is no escape.
After all, there is an indictment against the Government, not only in relation to intervention but because of their attitude in the past towards the Arab countries—Egypt, Iraq and Jordan; and also because of their failure, over and over again, to meet the requirements of the State of Israel. Let it not be forgotten that we provided Egypt with arms. We had a treaty with Egypt. The same applies to Iraq and to Jordan. In no single instance have we been able to rely either on the friendship or the stability of those régimes. In fact, to put it quite plainly and bluntly, we backed the wrong horse in our foreign policy in relation to the Middle East. That is to some extent the reason for what has transpired in recent days.
The noble Lord wishes to know what our position would be in relation to intervention; what are the conditions? I shall tell him. They are, first of all, the endorsement of the United Nations, and, secondly, a reasonable conviction that intervention would be effective.
Let us take the first point. We heard what the Prime Minister said today about our reason for intervention without waiting for the endorsement of the United Nations. But, after all, we cannot by-pass the United Nations over and over again. If we do, it will so gravely weaken the United Nations that not a single one or the member countries will have any faith or confidence in that organisation. If it fails, if it becomes ineffective, what are we left with?—no law, no order, no international understanding based on the Charter, but a free-for-all which could lead to chaos and anarchy, and eventually to a major international conflict. Whether we like it or not, we have to rely on the United Nations organisation.
It might have been well worth our while, instead of acting prematurely in this matter, to have waited even for several days to ascertain the views of our friends and even of our enemies in the United Nations. It may be argued, as indeed it has been, that to have waited for several days for a decision of the United Nations organisation might have

meant our inability to stop the rot in Jordan. What does that really mean? After all, Jordan is in possession of forces far in excess of those forces that we have sent to that country. If those forces are unable to quell a revolt, in heaven's name what chance have our 2,000 paratroopers got to deal with the situation?

Mr. Frederick Gough: rose—

Mr. Shinwell: There is no time for me to give way now.
I would remind hon. Members of our commitments in other parts of the world. We have commitments in Cyprus, and it seems that they will be prolonged. We have commitments in Southern Arabia, in the Aden Protectorate. We may be compelled to send reinforcements to the region of Kuwait in order to protect our oil resources. Where are our reinforcements to come from?
The Prime Minister said that this was not a moral or legalistic issue, that it was a practical issue. Let us approach it objectively and in a practical fashion. What right have we to intervene either in Jordan or elsewhere, more particularly without the backing and endorsement of the United Nations organisation of which we form a part, when all that we can say about this adventure is that, at the very best, it is a colossal gamble? It will not solve the problem of the Middle East.
When hon. Members, on both sides, seek to deal with this matter in a constructive fashion, let it be clearly understood that Arab nationalism, either divided or united, will continue to remain intransigent in relation to the State of Israel. I wonder what would be the attitude of Her Majesty's Government if Israel's frontiers were violated. Would we be ready then to intervene and to send forces into Israel? Has there been any indication in the past of support in a military context for the State of Israel? Of course not.
It has been difficult for many of us to come to a decision. I want to make it quite clear—I think this can be said for every hon. Member—that I am not anti-British. I am concerned about the interests of this great country. At the present time, however, I am gravely concerned about the interest of our troops in


Jordan. What are we to do about that? The noble Lord suggested that this may be a prolonged affair. He talked about the possible withdrawal of our forces. Is that likely? There can be no possibility of withdrawal unless stabilisation ensues as a result of intervention. Is that likely in the near future? Of course not.
Then the noble Lord said, let us go on with the fight and have an end to the struggle. With what? Do we have the forces at our disposal to continue the struggle?

Viscount Lambton: I made the point that it would be a joint operation.

Mr. Shinwell: Are we to say to the United States that even when we intervene of our own volition, we are quite incapable to carry on the struggle? If we have to rely on the United States of America, it would have been far better not to have intervened but to allow the American forces intervening in the Lebanon to carry on the struggle themselves. After all, the Americans allowed us to carry on the struggle in the past. I am not suggesting that we should pay them out in their own coin. Nevertheless, there is a substantial reason why we should not rely upon the United States in a matter of this sort. Reliance upon the United States in conjunction with the United Nations is a different proposition. [An HON. MEMBER: "Too late."] Somebody says that it is too late. It may be found that it is much too early. I would much rather have seen the Government, instead of acting prematurely, waiting a little longer to ascertain the views of the United Nations. It would have been far better to have the endorsement of the United Nations than to act of our own volition, particularly when we must regard action of this sort as highly ineffective.
Whatever happens in this adventure, we must do nothing to embarrass our forces in Jordan. We may indict the Government—that is our prerogative—if we feel that that is desirable and justifiable, but when our troops are involved that is a quite different matter. The Government involved our troops in this adventure and we can indict the Government because of what we regard as premature intervention, but we must not allow our troops to be placed in

jeopardy. Unless the Government can give some assurance that these troops will be safeguarded while in Jordan or that they regard the situation in the light of a possible early withdrawal, the Government deserve to be indicted to an even greater degree.
Finally, those of us who have held responsible positions in Governments know what the burdens on Ministers can be. How much must be the burden on the Prime Minister. There are acute political differences between us. That is well known, but, political differences apart, we recognise that at a time of acute crisis the burden upon a Prime Minister must be more embarrassing than ever, and none of us, I feel sure, wish to embarrass the Prime Minister unduly. If we indict the Government we do so not on personal grounds or because of any personal grievance against the right hon. Gentleman but because we feel that that duty is imposed upon us. I hope that is clearly understood.
In my judgment, we must stand with the United Nations. We must prop up the United Nations. There is no sensible alternative to that policy, but at the same time we must take whatever steps lie in our power in order to protect our troops in any part of the world.

9.12 p.m.

Mr. Aneurin Bevan: This afternoon the Prime Minister told us of the events of yesterday evening which led to decisions which, in their turn, led to the debate which we are having this evening. As I listened to him and looked at him, I am bound to say that I recalled some of the exchanges that took place in 1956, because it was quite evident to hon. Members in all parts of the House that the Prime Minister is suffering from very considerable burdens and is obviously somewhat jaded. Indeed, it would be quite staggering if he were not.
The right hon. Gentleman said that last night, immediately after he had finished his speech, he learned that a telegram had been received from Amman requesting the intervention of Great Britain in Jordan. Then he called the Cabinet together at eleven o'clock and it sat into the early hours of the morning, when it reached the decision to send the troops in. I hope that hon. Members in all parts of the House will forgive me if I examine


that situation a little more narrowly, because it really astonishes me that the Prime Minister could, indeed, have been taken by surprise by a request of that sort.
One would gather from his failure to say anything at all about it in the course of yesterday's debate that the right hon. Gentleman was quite right in saying that he was taken by surprise, and I must accept it. I should not like to accuse the right hon. Gentleman, even by inference, of deceiving the House. I know that he is incapable of doing that. But if that be the case, then he ought to do something about the Foreign Office. If I have the chance I shall have to do something about the Foreign Office, because there is obviously something seriously wrong.
Let us think of it seriously. Does any hon. Member imagine that a head of State suddenly launches an invitation of this sort to another State without first finding out how it might be received? It is a most astonishing proceeding. Most nations act in that way in the open only after they have made sure that they would not be rebuffed. Yet now we are told that this was done without any previous investigation. In fact there might have been some inquiries made on these lines, "If we ask this or that, in these or those circumstances, what is likely to be your reply?" That is what is usually done, but I understand that late at night a message is sent from Amman saying, "King Hussein is frightened of the situation; he wants immediate help", and the British Government sit for three hours in order to consider whether they should send it.
Now everybody knows that there had been trouble in Bagdad. It was not a secret at that stage. It was also known at that time that Jordan was a member of the Union, so there was nothing to surprise the members of the Cabinet in the fact that the trouble from Bagdad might spread to Amman. It would be rather curious if it did not, because there were people who had carried out a revolution in Bagdad and, therefore, one must assume that they would try to extend the revolution to the rest of the Union. So there was nothing surprising in that; in fact everybody would expect it.
Not only was it the fact that we could expect it to spread to Amman, but the

Prime Minister told us this afternoon that the Bagdad Radio informed them of their intentions. They did not even intend to take Jordan by surprise. The Prime Minister said that Bagdad Radio announced the revolution in Jordan. It said, according to the Prime Minister, that a revolution had started in Iraq and one in the Lebanon and tomorrow another revolution would start in Jordan. I am bound to say that was very good of them. Here is a revolution started from outside surreptitiously, organised clandestinely and then announced over the radio, and having been given notice that it was going to happen, King Hussein is such a popular monarch that he could not deal with it.
This is really a grotesque situation. [HON. MEMBERS: "Cheap."] This is exactly what the Prime Minister said this afternoon. What are we to conclude from that? We are to conclude that the King of Jordan is in such a weak position that, although he is told beforehand that there is going to be an uprising in his country, nevertheless his own forces are inadequate to deal with it. That is the conclusion we reach. [An HON. MEMBER: "Outside intervention."] I will come to the point about outside intervention.
There is nothing here about outside intervention, unless by outside is meant Bagdad. If by outside somewhere else is meant, we would like to know. We want to examine this narrowly because of events in the Lebanon. We were told that the reason why there was an American landing in the Lebanon backed by Great Britain was because President Chamoun had said he could not hold the situation, that the observers of the United Nations were inadequate.
Now we know from the facts from the Security Council that the United States went into the Lebanon not because the United Nations observer corps were inadequate, but because they were becoming adequate. It was not because the United Nations Security Council was failing, but because it was succeeding. The statement is made in the Security Council by the Secretary-General of the United Nations that he was satisfied that the whole frontier was under full control. It was at that stage that we went into the Lebanon.
We should therefore have a little more precise information as to why it was that


in the small hours of the morning the Government decided to send troops into Jordan. The argument that we sent them in because we were requested by a friendly Power which found itself in difficulties is too thin. Have we now reached a situation where, if any monarch or Government get into difficulties with their own people and request aid from Great Britain, Great Britain proposes to send it? Why on earth should the lives of British soldiers be risked in Jordan in order to maintain King Hussein on his throne against the wishes of his own people?
The argument is now that despite forewarning, despite the situation which he knew existed, nevertheless he would not be able to maintain his position against the uprising of his own people. We cannot have it said that we are putting people into the Army, the Navy and the Air Force in order to intervene gratuitously in various parts of the world where we are asked to send our boys to support some tottering Government or some ancient throne.
A friendly monarch? It is a very curious thing that it was only two years ago that he asked us to leave because our absence would strengthen him. Two years ago we were told that our presence in Jordan was an embarrassment and that he would be much stronger if we left. Now he says that he would be much stronger if we went in—and, of course, he would be.
The fact of the matter is that Jordan is a kept country and King Hussein is a kept king, and has been kept for many years. Now that a revolution has occurred in Bagdad, in Iraq, his resources have been cut off. No one would therefore be surprised if he found that there was a reason for us to go back in again, because unless he can find some reason for a comparative rich country to go in, not only will there be an uprising in his country, but his country will be completely ruined. He has been living on money from outside for many years. The fact is that Jordan has become nonviable as a consequence of a successful uprising in Bagdad.
What are we to do now? We have gone into Jordon, and a question has been asked, what do we propose to do there? We are told that there was a plot hatched

from Bagdad. Is it therefore held that this is a plot hatched in a foreign country? Are we now to conceive that the Union is broken and that Jordon is a separate State? If the plot is hatched from Bagdad and it is still a Union, this is a civil war, and if it is a civil war, we have no right to intervene. If, on the other hand, Jordan is a detached State, then the King of Jordan is committing the very offence of which the Prime Minister has accused others, by inciting an uprising in Bagdad. [Interruption.] Certainly. He broadcasts over the radio. But we must recognise the fact that the Government of Iraq, however short has been its existence, is recognised by a large number of nations. It is a de facto Government. Therefore, if King Hussein in a broadcast incites a rising in Iraq, he cannot expect anything else than for Iraq to incite a rising in Jordan.
I have always held the view that it is absolutely essential, especially in the Middle East, that we should try to conduct our affairs in such a way as not to collide with the Soviet Union. I have always believed that the great danger here is that we may take action that would involve the prestige of one of the great Powers coming into collision with the Soviet Union. We have information that the Bulgarian land, sea and air forces are joining in manoeuvres with the Soviet Union on the Turkish frontier.
If a request from King Hussein ranks as a justification for sending troops into Jordan—as the Prime Minister contends—the Iraki Government in Bagdad would be perfectly entitled to invite assistance from the Soviet Union, by exactly the same reasoning. We should then have British troops drawn more and more into collision with Soviet troops, either in the form of volunteers or of direct help. The prestige of both power blocs would become increasingly involved, and each would find it more and more difficult to detach itself from such a situation without grievous loss of face.
Surely hon. Members should recognise that that is a situation we should seek at all costs to avoid. We ought not to be put into the position, in some subsequent debate, of having to consider either withdrawing our forces from that area or adding to them, with the Soviet adding to theirs and the Americans adding to theirs—on and on and on, until before


very long we found ourselves locked in a conflict from which we were unable to disentangle ourselves. That is the seriousness of the situation, as I understand it. That may be one of the results of this gamble, and that is why we earnestly hope that the Government, even now, will try to detach themselves from the situation into which they have got.
I do not believe that it is the duty of British forces to stop revolutions. Since when has it been? Since when have we decided that if revolution is spread throughout the Middle East it is our duty to suppress it? Since when have we taken the view that we are now going to engage our forces in a holy war against revolution in the Middle East? If that be the policy of the Government they should say so. The Prime Minister has been careful. He has said, "We are going into Jordan merely in order to maintain stability in the area." He has not frankly answered the question: If King Hussein launches an attack upon Bagdad, and if he uses such forces as are available to him for the purpose of reversing the decisions of Bagdad, will we withdraw? All that he has said is that the logistics of the situation make it highly improbable that that would happen. That is not a frank answer.
What we want to know is whether the presence of British troops in Amman will help to cover an attack by King Hussein on Iraq. We are not clear about that, because all kinds of equivocal words have been used. The ambassador has used them. It may be the intention of King Hussein to ask us to cover operations conducted by himself. We want a plain answer to this question: If, in fact, the presence of British troops in Amman will be used as a cover for an attack on Bagdad, has the Prime Minister informed King Hussein that in those circumstances British troops will be withdrawn? Because, if that is not the case, then, of course, we shall ourselves be conducting a war against Iraq by proxy. That is a very cowardly thing to do; but a dangerous thing to do.
If, on the other hand, we do not propose to cover an attack by Amman on Bagdad, do we propose to remain in Amman indefinitely? Are we going to keep our forces there, until when? Until Jordan is settled? Are the Americans

going to keep their troops in the Lebanon until the Lebanon is settled? Under what circumstances are we going to withdraw? What the British people want to know is not only what action we have taken and what justification there is for it; they want to know what sort of general policy the Government have in mind. What is the destination at which they are aiming? Where do they want to get?
Is it merely that we are going in there to stay there indefinitely, or is this operation a part of a wider operation envisaged by the Government now? If it is a part of a wider operation, then, of course, we must resist it because of the sinister consequences that would be involved. If it is merely a limited operation, then we cannot see any end to it at all; and for both these reasons we oppose the policy.
Yesterday evening, my right hon. Friend and I told the Government that we were not going to divide the House yesterday evening because we did not want to disturb the unity of the nation in the face of a grave international situation. We warned the Government that we would not support them if they sent troops into Jordan and into Iraq or into the Lebanon—or, indeed, into any part of the Middle East where we had no existing treaty obligations. We said that the Government would have to face the responsibility themselves—if they took such action—of having divided the nation.
We said that in the most solemn tones; we said that after an exhaustive debate, and a debate which had been conducted at a particularly high level. In spite of that warning, given in the most precise terms, the Prime Minister immediately leaves this Chamber and convenes the Cabinet; and that Cabinet decides that the welfare of the King of Jordan is more important than the unity of the British nation.
The Government decided to put our troops in jeopardy in a situation where it is doubtful whether they can be adequately reinforced and supplied, without having made quite sure beforehand that they would be allowed by Israel to pass over Israeli territory. That situation is still equivocal. We still hear that Israel's permission has been withdrawn, and one of the answers I should like from the Prime Minister is: is he perfectly satisfied that we can lawfully supply our


troops in Amman? The Government decided to do that in spite of the debate that we had yesterday.
In all those circumstances, we must tell the Prime Minister, the House and the country that we consider that our troops have been placed in unnecessary jeopardy, that the interests of the people of Great Britain will not be served either in the short or the long run by what the Government have done, and that the Government may have taken a long step towards plunging this country into war. In circumstances of that sort and for reasons of that sort, it is impossible for the Opposition to do any other than its duty to the country and ask the House to divide against the Government.

Major H. Legge-Bourke: rose—

Hon. Members: Oh.

Mr. John Stonehouse: On a point of order. Is it in order for an hon. Member to induce another hon. Member to speak when he is obviously not prepared to do so.

Mr. Speaker: That is not a point of order for me.

Major Legge-Bourke: It is a fact as you well know, Mr. Speaker, that I had asked that I might be allowed to speak in this debate. I was only sorry that the right hon. Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. A. Bevan) rose a few minutes before he said he was going to.
In 1956, we debated in this House recent events in the Middle East, which had included the dismissal of General Glubb by King Hussein. I was almost the only hon. Member in the House on either side on that occasion to say a few words of sympathy towards King Hussein. The general tendency in the House and the country was to condemn him, because many people, perhaps understandably, regarded his action as something of a slight to this country, to an old friend, General Glubb, and to Her Majesty's Government.
On that occasion, I made a few observations from which I should like tonight to repeat a short quotation, because it is relevant to the debate that we have today. [Interruption.] I would never claim to have any more right to the attention of the House than any other

hon. Member, but I think I might with humility be allowed to say that I am one of those who has spent a number of years in the Middle East and on occasions I have found myself obliged to take a line not absolutely in tune with all my hon. Friends. Perhaps I might therefore claim a little indulgence, and I should be most grateful to hon. Members. We ought also to realise that it is not very often that a back bencher has the opportunity of following the winding-up speech of a speaker on the Opposition Front Bench.
All I wish to do is to recall a few words which I said at the time when King Hussein had broken off an old treaty with us and returned General Glubb to us. I said then, and I would say it again tonight, because I believe it to be absolutely applicable to the present situation:
I believe that the one thing we must avoid doing if we possibly can is to make it more difficult for this present King of Jordan to keep control of the affairs of his country. It is perfectly true that he has slighted this country, that he has slighted General Glubb and has slighted Her Majesty's Government … but I still ask this question. If we take action which makes it impossible for that man to remain as ruler of Jordan, are we quite certain that the alternative will be any better?"—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 7th March, 1956; Vol. 549, c. 2160.]
I believe that those remarks are applicable today.
Hon. Members who have spoken in this debate have all exercised the most commendable restraint, on both sides of the House, and I will, if I may, from the bottom of my heart, congratulate the right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition on the most carefully measured words which he spoke both yesterday and today. Many of the misgivings that he has are felt not only on his side of the House. This is, as the right hon. Gentleman quite rightly said, an extremely grave moment. It is an extremely complicated and anxious time that we are living in, and the problems we have to deal with are not problems, I believe, which will ever find the ideal solution. It is inevitably, as it so often is in politics, a matter of choosing the lesser of evils.
None of us likes the idea, and it is never a pleasant thing to do—the right hon. Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell) expressed very much my own


feelings about this—sending British troops out into a position where, one knows, their lines of communication may be easily cut or where it might be extremely difficult for them to be properly provided for. All of us on this side, just as much as hon. and right hon. Gentlemen opposite, know how difficult the situation is in the committing of the Parachute Brigade. We all know.
Here I will take up the cudgels a little with the hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman). He suggested that the Prime Minister had used only the juridical arguments about this matter. I should have thought that the one thing which became absolutely clear in what my right hon. Friend the Prime Minister said is that not only have we to be morally right, not only have we to be legally right in what we do, but we have to try to decide whether what we are trying to do is wise. Each one of us has had that problem to turn over in our minds. Anyone who has gone seriously into it must surely appreciate that it is virtually impossible to find the ideal solution in these circumstances. Are we really to suppose that the Cabinet sat for the three hours it did last night without discovering that these are difficult things to decide?
I am absolutely convinced that there are times when one has to do something which may even seem to be unwise rather than be so ashamed of oneself in one's heart that one cannot even face oneself in a looking glass. [Interruption.] We all shave in the morning, do we not? I do not wish to delay the House but, before I sit down, there is this I wish to say. [HON. MEMBERS: "Go on."] There are many friends of the State of Israel in this House, but there are many friends of the Arab countries, too. What we should like to feel is that a message went out from the House that what is being done in the name of this country, in the name of the United States and in the name of the free world, is done in order to ensure that both Arab and Israeli can live at peace in the future. I do not believe that they could live at peace for very long unless those who are prepared to keep in with the West are given some encouragement. Now, as we are committed, I believe that there is but one thing to ensure, that we go through with it and make certain that it is a success.

9.45 p.m.

The Prime Minister: Mr. Speaker, I should like to ask the leave of the House to speak again, and if I have that permission, to try very shortly to answer some of the questions which have been asked.
The debate today, like yesterday's debate, has been one, I think, in which the general tone and temper has been in conformity with the importance of the isues which we face both today and for the future. I tried in opening the debate today, as I did yesterday, to keep as far as possible within the limits of factual statement and sober argument. I shall try to end on the same note tonight. But then, of course, I have this great advantage that I both opened the debate from this side of the House and closed it. Therefore, I can, however jaded, at least see that the two speeches from this side of the House are in the same general mood.
There are some important questions which I have been asked and which I will try to answer. First, about the over flying of Israeli territory. The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition asked, and the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Bevan) repeated the question, whether the permission of the Israeli Government had been obtained for our aircraft to fly over Israel. This is the position. In view of the urgency—and I felt it very deeply—a small advance party was dispatched from Cyprus as soon as it was possible after our decision was taken, and it landed in Jordan after obtaining clearance to fly over Israeli territory from the local air control authority. For the main body of the force, permission to fly over Israeli territory was subsequently obtained at Governmental level. It is true that in the communication from the Israeli Government it thought it right—and I do not blame it at all—to register a complaint about the clearance of the small party without complete Governmental authority, but there is, in this same letter to me, conveyed its permission without any qualification.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition also raised the question what would happen in the future, and, of course, this was raised by other hon. Members. I cannot tell—I must be frank with the House—what will happen over


this vast area, but I think that there are some statements, not unnaturally made in all this excitement from both sides of the House and many quarters not only in this country but all over, which we must understand the reason for, but which are sometimes, I think, made without much regard for practical possibilities.
As I said, I will answer the questions which the right hon. Gentleman asked me. He complains that I do not always give a plain answer to a plain question. The trouble is that he so seldom asks a plain question. As I have said over and over again, our purpose in the dispatch of this small force, indeed by its very character, is to prevent foreign aggression, and, so far as we can, to protect the integrity of Jordan.
In making their request, the Jordanian King and Government assured us that they had no intention that the British troops should be used in order to release Jordan forces to attack Iraq. I repeat what I said earlier today that this obligation remains upon them and it is on that basis that we decided to send our help.
Some observations were made about the Moslem attitude, and we must be very careful. I think that we must also take into account, which perhaps I did not sufficiently emphasise this afternoon, the reactions of other Allies—Turkey, Pakistan and Iran. The action which the United States Government took in the Lebanon has been welcomed by these three Moslem States, and they expressed their hope and strong desire that we might be able to take the same action in Jordan. Therefore, whatever may be the truth about the movement of Russian troops on the Iran border, to which the Leader of the Opposition referred, it does not at any rate seem to have affected the staunch attitude of these three countries towards a question which they think affects their life and liberty as well as the small States.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition used some words at the end of his speech which thought were very important and to which I shall try to respond on the same note. He referred to possible Soviet reactions and the effect upon the future of the immense problem of the divided world. He did not content himself with warnings, but

made some suggestions in a very helpful spirit. He did not ask me to answer now—he especially said that—but it is only right that I should try to make a provisional reply.
I do not think that anything that has happened has reduced the possibilities of what we were discussing before these events happened and for which we have worked so hard, that is, to try to get some kind of agreement with the Soviet authorities. It has certainly not reduced my wish to have a summit meeting on the lines that I have so often explained to the House—reasonably prepared and likely to be effective in at least some measure. I must candidly add that I do not think—I may be wrong—that anything that has happened has made it less likely that we shall be able to achieve this purpose.
The right hon. Gentleman the Leader of the Opposition said that he did not propose to discuss the question on the basis of international law and that he believed that a good case could probably be made out to justify our action on legal grounds. The hon. Member for Nelson and Colne (Mr. S. Silverman) went even further in a very interesting speech. He said that he was not much interested in the refinements of international law, although he conceded that this action was legitimate. I thought that perhaps he rather underrated the importance of this matter, but I am glad to have these views, and I think that it is satisfactory to both sides of the House and to the country to feel that, whatever the question of the wisdom which we are discussing, there is a broad understanding that we have acted within the letter and spirit of international law.
There have been some observations about Jordan to which I should like to refer. Of course, we cannot complain about them, but, like my hon. and gallant Friend the Member for the Isle of Ely (Major Legge-Bourke), I think that they were sometimes perhaps a little ungenerous. It is, of course, true that under great pressures—not all of them internal even—the young King of Jordan treated us with what we are perfectly entitled to regard as ingratitude. But I do not think that a great nation like ours should hold this against the value of a long friendship and the work that we have done for that country, or not have regard to the present relations which are restored between us.
It is quite true that Jordan is not a democratic State in the modern sense of the word. But Jordan has at least a form of Parliament. The Senate and the House are both elected. They were elected two years ago. If the Jordanian system has not reached the position of the British system, it is not altogether dissimilar from the system from which our own has developed over the centuries. It is in an earlier form from which it can hope to develop into something like what we have here. After all, our own took quite a long time before all the rights, or, dare I say it, the Privileges of Parliament were set up.
All the speeches that have been made, and especially that of the Leader of the Opposition, have laid stress on the dangers of the action taken by Her Majesty's Government. I am well aware of them: dangers to our own position; dangers to the future developments in the Middle East, and, perhaps, all over the world. Of course, there are dangers in this action. If there were not dangers, it would not have been so difficult to make this decision, but I would deny that this is, in itself, a reason why we should not have taken this decision, for, in all these matters, we have to weigh one set of dangers against another.
I am bound to say that I thought that the right hon. Gentleman, and some other speakers, addressed themselves only to the dangers that would result from our action, and not sufficiently to the dangers that would result from doing nothing. We have had a short debate, and the urgency of the moment has not made it easy to deploy all the arguments fully but, in a sense, some of the arguments deployed yesterday are very relevant to those deployed today. Therefore, I do

not think that the House would now expect me, beyond answering the factual questions, to go further into them.

We have had a three-hour debate, and I feel that the House has been very generous to allow me the right to reply, even shortly, but I should like to say that there would be dangers, and these impressed me the most, in letting things slide, among them—for we cannot altogether disregard it—the danger of dishonour in not acceding to this request.

The right hon. Gentleman said, I think, that we both sincerely have the same purpose. That was repeated in the very generous terms used by the right hon. Gentleman the Member for Easington (Mr. Shinwell), which I very much appreciated, about myself. He and I have now been a very long time in the House together—[Interruption.] The Leader of the Opposition does not wish to divide the nation, and I feel that the debates have been so conducted, whatever the result, as to achieve that purpose, in the main; but, if we do not wish to divide the nation, why is it necessary to divide the House tonight?

I would only say this. Yesterday, the Opposition did not divide the House when the United States took action in parallel, though not identical, circumstances in the Lebanon, with the full support of Britain. Today, when it is our own country that has acted with the full support of the United States, it is thought necessary to divide the House. May I ask this question: If it is not right to vote against America, why is it right to vote against Britain?

Question put, That this House do now adjourn:—

The House divided: Ayes 251, Noes 314.

Division No. 201.]
AYES
[9.59 p.m.


Ainsley, J. W.
Bonham Carter, Mark
Corbet, Mrs. Freda


Albu, A. H.
Bottomley, Rt. Hon. A. G.
Cove, W. G.


Allaun, Frank (Salford, E.)
Braddock, Mrs. Elizabeth
Craddock, George (Bradford, S.)


Allen, Arthur (Bosworth)
Brockway, A. F.
Crossman, R. H. S.


Allen, Scholefield (Crewe)
Broughton, Dr. A. D. D.
Cullen, Mrs. A.


Awbery, S. S.
Burke, W. A.
Dalton, Rt. Hon. H.


Bacon, Miss Alice
Butler, Herbert (Hackney, C.)
Darling, George (Hillsborough)


Baird, J.
Butler, Mrs. Joyce (Wood Green)
Davies,Rt.Hon.Clement(Montgomery)


Balfour, A.
Callaghan, L. J.
Davies, Ernest (Enfield, E.)


Bellenger, Rt. Hon. F. J.
Carmichael, J.
Davies, Harold (Leek)


Bence, C. R. (Dunbartonshire, E.)
Castle, Mrs. B. A.
Davies, Stephen (Merthyr)


Benn, Hn. Wedgwood (Bristol, S. E.)
Champion, A. J.
Deer, G.


Benson, Sir George
Chapman, W. D.
de Freitas, Geoffrey


Beswick, Frank
Chetwynd, G. R.
Delargy, H. J.


Bevan, Rt. Hon. A. (Ebbw Vale)
Clunie, J.
Diamond, John


Blackburn, F.
Coldrick, W.
Dodds, N. N.


Blenkinsop, A.
Collick, P. H. (Birkenhead)
Donnelly, D. L.


Blyton, W. R.
Collins, V. J. (Shoreditch &amp; Finsbury)
Dugdale, Rt. Hn. John (W. Brmwch)


Boardman, H.






Dye, S.
Lindgren, G. S.
Ross, William


Ede, Rt. Hon. J. C.
Lipton, Marcus
Royle, C.


Edelman, M.
Logan, D. G.
Shinwell, Rt. Hon. E.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. John (Brighouse)
Mabon, Dr. J. Dickson
Short, E. W.


Edwards, Rt. Hon. Ness (Caerphilly)
McAlister, Mrs. Mary
Shurmer, P. L. E.


Edwards, Robert (Bilston)
McCann, J.
Silverman, Julius (Aston)


Edwards, W. J. (Stepney)
MacColl, J. E.
Silverman, Sydney (Nelson)


Evans, Albert (Islington, S. W.)
MacDermot, Niall
Simmons, C. J. (Brierley Hill)


Evans, Edward (Lowestoft)
McKay, John (Wallsend)
Skeffington, A. M.


Fernyhough, E.
McLeavy, Frank
Slater, Mrs. H. (Stoke, N.)


Fletcher, Eric
MacPherson, Malcolm (Stirling)
Slater, J. (Sedgefield)


Foot, D. M.
Mahon, Simon
Smith, Ellis (Stoke, S.)


Fraser, Thomas (Hamilton)
Mallalieu, E. L. (Brigg)
Snow, J. W.


Gaitskell, Rt. Hon. H. T. N.
Mallalieu, J. P. W. (Huddersfd, E.)
Sorensen, R. W.


George, Lady Megan Lloyd (Car'then)
Mann, Mrs. Jean
Soskice, Rt. Hon. Sir Frank


Gibson, C. W.
Marquand, Rt. Hon. H. A.
Sparks, J. A.


Gordon Walker, Rt. Hon. P. C.
Mason, Roy
Spriggs, Leslie


Greenwood, Anthony
Mayhew, C. P.
Steele, T.


Grenfell, Rt. Hon. D. R.
Mellish, R. J.
Stewart, Michael (Fulham)


Grey, C. F.
Messer, Sir F.
Stonehouse, John


Griffiths, David (Rother Valley)
Mitchison, G. R.
Stones, W. (Consett)


Griffiths, Rt. Hon. James (Llanelly)
Monslow, W.
Strachey, Rt. Hon. J.


Griffiths, William (Exchange)
Morris, Percy (Swansea, W.)
Strauss, Rt. Hon. George (Vauxhall)


Grimond, J.
Morrison,Rt.Hn.Herbert(Lewis'm, S.)
Stross, Dr.Barnett(Stoke-on-Trent,C.)


Hale, Leslie




Hall, Rt. Hn. Gienvil (Colne Valley)
Mort, D. L.
Summerskill, Rt. Hon. E.


Hamilton, W. W.
Moss, R. L.
Swingler, S. T.


Hannan, W.
Moyle, A.
Sylvester, G. D.


Harrison, J. (Nottingham, N.)
Mulley, F. W.
Taylor, Bernard (Mansfield)


Hastings, S.
Neal, Harold (Bolsover)
Taylor, John (West Lothian)


Hayman, F. H.
Noel-Baker, Francis (Swindon)
Thomas, George (Cardiff)


Healey, Denis
Noel-Baker, Rt. Hon. P. (Derby, S.)
Thomas, Iorwerth (Rhondda, W.)


Henderson, Rt. Hn. A. (Rwly Regis)
O'Brien, Sir Thomas
Thomson, George (Dundee, E.)


Herbison, Miss M.
Oliver, G. H.
Thornton, E.


Hewitson, Capt. M.
Oram, A. E.
Tomney, F.


Holman, P.
Orbach, M.
Ungoed-Thomas, Sir Lynn


Holmes, Horace
Oswald, T.
Usborne, H. C.


Holt, A. F.
Owen, W. J.
Viant, S. P.


Houghton, Douglas
Padley, W. E.
Wade, D. W.


Howell, Charles (Perry Barr)
Paget, R. T.
Warbey, W. N.


Howell, Denis (All Saints)
Paling, Will T. (Dewsbury)
Watkins, T. E.


Hoy, J. H.
Palmer, A. M. F.
Weitzman, D.


Hubbard, T. F.
Pannell, Charles (Leeds, W.)
Wells, Percy (Faversham)


Hughes, Emrys (S. Ayrshire)
Pargiter, G. A.
Wells, William (Walsall, N.)


Hughes, Hector (Aberdeen, N.)
Parker, J.
West, D. G.


Hunter, A. E.
Parkin, B. T.
Wheeldon, W. E.


Hynd, J. B. (Attercliffe)
Paton, John
White, Mrs. Eirene (E. Flint)


Irvine, A. J. (Edge Hill)
Peart, T. F.
Wigg, George


Irving, Sydney (Dartford)
Pentland, N.
Wilcock, Group Capt. C. A. B.


Isaacs, Rt. Hon. G. A.
Plummer, Sir Leslie
Wilkins, W. A.


Jay, Rt. Hon. D. P. T.
Popplewell, E.
Willey, Frederick


Jeger, George (Goole)
Prentice, R. E.
Williams, David (Neath)


Jeger, Mrs. Lena(Holbn &amp; St. Pncs, S.)
Price, J. T. (Westhoughton)
Williams, Rev. Llywelyn (Ab'tillery)


Jenkins, Roy (Stechford)
Price, Philips (Gloucestershire, W.)
Williams, Rt. Hon. T. (Don Valley)


Johnson, James (Rugby)
Probert, A. R.
Williams, W. R. (Openshaw)


Jones, Rt. Hon. A. Creech (Wakefield)
Proctor, W. T.
Williams, W. T. (Barons Court)


Jones, David (The Hartlepools)
Pursey, Cmdr. H.
Willis, Eustace (Edinburgh, E.)


Jones, Elwyn (W. Ham, S.)
Rankin, John
Wilson, Rt. Hon. Harold (Huyton)


Jones, J. Idwal (Wrexham)
Redhead, E. C.
Winterbottom, Richard


Jones, T. W. (Merioneth)
Reeves, J.
Woodburn, Rt. Hn. A.


Kenyon, C.
Reid, William
Woof, R. E.


Key, Rt. Hon. C. W.
Reynolds, G. W.
Yates, V. (Ladywood)


King, Dr. H. M.
Robens, Rt. Hon. A.
Younger, Rt. Hon. K.


Lawson, G. M.
Roberts, Albert (Normanton)
Zilliacus, K.


Ledger, R. J.
Roberts, Goronwy (Caernarvon)



Lee, Miss Jennie (Cannock)
Robinson, Kenneth (St. Pancras, N.)
TELLERS FOR THE AYES:


Lever, Harold (Cheetham)
Rogers, George (Kensington, N.)
Mr. Bowden and Mr. Pearson.




NOES


Agnew, Sir Peter
Balniel, Lord
Biggs-Davison, J. A.


Aitken, W. T.
Banks, Col. C.
Bingham, R. M.


Allan, R. A. (Paddington, S.)
Barber, Anthony
Birch, Rt. Hon. Nigel


Alport, C. J. M.
Barlow, Sir John
Bishop, F. P.


Amery, Julian (Preston, N.)
Barter, John
Black, C. W.


Amory, Rt. Hn. Heathcoat (Tiverton)
Batsford, Brian
Body, R. F.


Anstruther-Gray, Major Sir William
Baxter, Sir Beverley
Boothby, Sir Robert


Arbuthnot, John
Beamish, Col. Tufton
Bossom, Sir Alfred


Armstrong, C. W.
Bell, Philip (Bolton, E.)
Boyd-Carpenter, Rt. Hon. J. A.


Ashton, H.
Bell, Ronald (Bucks, S.)
Boyle, Sir Edward


Astor, Hon. J. J.
Bennett, F. M. (Torquay)
Braine, B. R.


Atkins, H. E.
Bennett, Dr. Reginald
Braithwaite, Sir Albert (Harrow, W.)


Baldock, Lt.-Cmdr. J. M.
Bevins, J. R. (Toxteth)
Bromley-Davenport, Lt.-Col. W. H.


Baldwin, Sir Archer
Bidgood, J. C.
Brooke, Rt. Hon. Henry







Brooman-White, R. C.
Henderson, John (Cathcart)
Marshall, Douglas


Browne, J. Nixon (Craigton)
Henderson-Stewart, Sir James
Mathew, R.


Bryan, P.
Hesketh, R. F.
Maudling, Rt. Hon. R.


Bullus, Wing Commander E. E.
Hicks-Beach, Maj. W. W.
Mawby, R. L.


Burden, F. F. A.
Hill, Rt. Hon. Charles (Luton)
Maydon, Lt.-Cmdr. S. L. C.


Butler, Rt. Hn. R. A.(Saffron Walden)
Hill, Mrs. E. (Wythenshawe)
Medlicott, Sir Frank


Campbell, Sir David
Hill, John (S. Norfolk)
Milligan, Rt. Hon. W. R.


Carr, Robert
Hinchingbrooke, Viscount
Molson, Rt. Hon. Hugh


Cary, Sir Robert
Hirst, Geoffrey
Moore, Sir Thomas


Channon, Sir Henry
Hobson, John (Warwick &amp; Leam'gt'n)
Morrison, John (Salisbury)


Chichester-Clark, R.
Holland-Martin, C. J.
Mott-Radclyffe, Sir Charles


Churchill, Rt. Hon. Sir Winston
Hope, Lord John
Nabarro, G. D. N.


Clarke, Brig. Terence (Portsmth, W.)
Hornby, R. P.
Nairn, D. L. S.


Cole, Norman
Hornsby-Smith, Miss M. P.
Neave, Airey


Conant, Maj. Sir Roger
Horsbrugh, Rt. Hon. Dame Florence
Nicholls, Harmar


Cooke, Robert
Howard, Gerald (Cambridgeshire)
Nicholson, Sir Godfrey (Farnham)


Cooper, A. E.
Howard, Hon. Greville (St. Ives)
Nicolson, N. (B'n'm'th, E. &amp; Chr'ch)


Cooper-Key, E. M.
Howard, John (Test)
Noble, Michael (Argyll)


Cordeaux, Lt.-Col. J. K.
Hudson, W. R. A. (Hull, N.)
O'Neill, Hn. Phelim (Co. Antrim, N.)


Corfield, Capt. F. V.
Hughes, Hallett, Vice-Admiral J.
Ormsby-Gore, Rt. Hon. W. D.


Craddock, Beresford (Spelthorne)
Hughes-Young, M. H. C.
Orr-Ewing, Charles Ian (Hendon, N.)


Crosthwaite-Eyre, Col. O. E.
Hulbert, Sir Norman
Osborne, C.


Crowder, Sir John (Finchley)
Hurd, A. R.
Page, R. G.


Crowder, Petre (Ruislip—Northwood)
Hutchison, Michael Clark (E'b'gh, S.)
Pannell, N. A. (Kirkdale)


Cunningham, Knox
Hutchison, Sir James (Scotstoun)
Partridge, E.


Currie, G. B. H.
Hyde, Montgomery
Peel, W. J.


Dance, J. C. G.
Hylton-Foster, Rt. Hon. Sir Harry
Peyton, J. W. W.


Davidson, Viscountess
Iremonger, T. L.
Pickthorn, K. W. M.


D'Avigdor-Goldsmid, Sir Henry
Irvine, Bryant Godman (Rye)
Pike, Miss Mervyn


Deedes, W. F.
Jenkins, Robert (Dulwich)
Pilkington, Capt. R. A.


Digby, Simon Wingfield
Jennings, J. C. (Burton)
Pitman, I. J.


Dodds-Parker, A. D.
Johnson, Dr. Donald (Carlisle)
Pitt, Miss E. M.


Donaldson, Cmdr. C. E. McA.
Johnson, Eric (Blackley)
Pott, H. P.


Doughty, C. J. A.
Johnson, Howard (Kemptown)
Powell, J. Enoch


Drayson, G. B.
Jones, Rt. Hon. Aubrey (Hall Green)
Price, David (Eastleigh)


du Cann, E. D. L.
Joseph, Sir Keith
Price, Henry (Lewisham, W.)


Dugdale, Rt. Hn. Sir T. (Richmond)




Duncan, Sir James
Kaberry, D.
Prior-Palmer, Brig. O. L.


Duthie, W. S.
Keegan, D.
Profumo, J. D.


Eccles, Rt. Hon. Sir David
Kerby, Capt. H. B.
Ramsden, J. E.


Eden, J. B. (Bournemouth, West)
Kerr, Sir Hamilton
Rawlinson, Peter


Elliott, R. W. (Ne'castle upon Tyne, N.)
Kershaw, J. A.
Redmayne, M.


Emmet, Hon. Mrs. Evelyn
Kimball, M.
Rees-Davies, W. R.


Errington, Sir Eric
Kirk, P. M.
Renton, D. L. M.


Erroll, F. J.
Lagden, G. W.
Ridsdale, J. E.


Farey-Jones, F. W.
Lambton, Viscount
Rippon, A. G. F.


Fell, A.
Lancaster, Col. C. G.
Roberts, Sir Peter (Heeley)


Finlay, Graeme
Langford-Holt, J. A.
Robertson, Sir David


Fisher, Nigel
Leather, E. H. C.
Robinson, Sir Roland (Blackpool, S.)


Fletcher-Cooke, C.
Leavey, J. A.
Rodgers, John (Sevenoaks)


Forrest, G.
Leburn, W. G.
Roper, Sir Harold


Fort, R.
Legge-Bourke, Maj. E. A. H.
Ropner, Col. Sir Leonard


Foster, John
Legh, Hon. Peter (Petersfield)
Russell, R. S.


Fraser, Hon. Hugh (Stone)
Lennox-Boyd, Rt. Hon. A. T.
Sandys, Rt. Hon. D.


Fraser, Sir Ian (M'cmbe &amp; Lonsdale)
Lindsay, Hon. James (Devon, N.)
Scott-Miller, Cmdr. R.


Gammans, Lady
Lindsay, Martin (Solihull)
Sharples, R. C.


Garner-Evans, E. H.
Linstead, Sir H. N.
Shepherd, William


George, J. C. (Pollok)
Lloyd, Rt. Hon. G. (Sutton Coldfield)
Smyth, Brig. Sir John (Norwood)


Gibson-Watt, D.
Lloyd, Maj. Sir Guy (Renfrew, E.)
Soames, Rt. Hon. Christopher


Glover, D.
Longden, Gilbert
Spearman, Sir Alexander


Glyn, Col. Richard H.
Low, Rt. Hon. Sir Toby
Speir, R. M.


Godber, J. B.
Lucas, Sir Jocelyn (Portsmouth, S.)
Spence, H. R. (Aberdeen, W.)


Goodhart, Philip
Lucas, P. B. (Brentford &amp; Chiswick)
Spens, Rt. Hn. Sir P. (Kens'gt'n, S.)


Gough, C. F. H.
Lucas-Tooth, Sir Hugh
Stanley, Capt. Hon. Richard


Gower, H. R.
McAdden, S. J.
Stevens, Geoffrey


Graham, Sir Fergus
Macdonald, Sir Peter
Steward, Harold (Stockport, S.)


Grant-Ferris, Wg Cdr. R. (Nantwich)
Mackeson, Brig. Sir Harry
Storey, S.


Green, A.
McKibbin, Alan
Stuart, Rt. Hon. James (Moray)


Gresham Cooke, R.
Mackie, J. H. (Galloway)
Studholme, Sir Henry


Grimston, Hon. John (St. Albans)
McLaughlin, Mrs. P.
Summers, Sir Spencer


Grimston, Sir Robert (Westbury)
Maclay, Rt. Hon. John
Sumner, W. D. M. (Orpington)


Grosvenor, Lt.-Col. R. G.
Maclean, Sir Fitzroy (Lancaster)
Taylor, Sir Charles (Eastbourne)


Gurden, Harold
Macleod, Rt. Hn. Iain (Enfield, W.)
Taylor, William (Bradford, N.)


Hall, John (Wycombe)
MacLeod, John (Ross &amp; Cromarty)
Teeling, W.


Hare, Rt. Hon. J. H.
Macmillan, Rt. Hn. Harold (Bromley)
Temple, John M.


Harris, Frederic (Croydon, N. W.)
Macmillan, Maurice (Halifax)
Thomas, Leslie (Canterbury)


Harris, Reader (Heston)
Macpherson, Niall (Dumfries)
Thomas, P. J. M. (Conway)


Harrison, A. B. C. (Maldon)
Maddan, Martin
Thompson, Kenneth (Walton)


Harrison, Col. J. H. (Eye)
Maitland, Cdr. J. F. W. (Horncastle)
Thompson, R. (Croydon, S.)


Harvey, Ian (Harrow, E.)
Maitland, Hon. Patrick (Lanark)
Thorneycroft, Rt. Hon. P.


Harvey, John (Walthamstow, E.)
Manningham-Buller, Rt. Hn. Sir R.
Thornton-Kemsley, Sir Colin


Hay, John
Markham, Major Sir Frank
Tiley, A. (Bradford, W.)


Head, Rt. Hon. A. H.
Marlowe, A. A. H.
Tilney, John (Wavertree)


Heald, Rt. Hon. Sir Lionel
Marples, Rt. Hon. A. E.
Turner, H. R. L.







Turton, Rt. Hon. R. H.
Wall, Patrick
Williams, R. Dudley (Exeter)


Tweedsmuir, Lady
Ward, Rt. Hon. G. R. (Worcester)
Wills, Sir Gerald (Bridgwater)


Vane, W. M. F.
Ward, Dame Irene (Tynemouth)
Wilson, Geoffrey (Truro)


Vaughan-Morgan, J. K.
Watkinson, Rt. Hon. Harold
Wood, Hon. R.


Vickers, Miss Joan
Webbe, Sir H.
Woollam, John Victor


Wakefield, Edward (Derbyshire, W.)
Webster, David
Yates, William (The Wrekin)


Wakefield, Sir Wavell (St. M'lebone)
Whitelaw, W. S. I.



Walker-Smith, Rt. Hon. Derek
Williams, Paul (Sunderland, S.)
TELLERS FOR THE NOES:




Mr. Heath and Mr. Oakshott.

CALF SUBSIDIES

10.10 p.m.

The Joint Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Agriculture, Fisheries and Food (Mr. J. B. Godber): I beg to move,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.
I suggest that it might be for the convenience of the House if we debated at the same time the similar Scheme for Scotland.
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

Mr. Speaker: That would be a convenient course if hon. Members agree.

Mr. Godber: The Schemes which I am asking the House to approve provide for the continuance of these subsidies for a further three years. They are solely schemes to continue the present arrangements. Both the conditions under which the subsidy is paid and the rate of subsidy of £7 10s. per head for heifer calves and £8 10s. per head for steer calves will remain the same. Since the subsidy was introduced, there has been a considerable increase in the retention of steer calves from the dairy herd which had previously been killed at a few days' old.
I am afraid that this year's figures are not yet available, but on 4th June, 1957, there were 900,000 steer calves, 260,000 more than five years before, and 1,437,000 heifer calves, an increase of 70,000, in the United Kingdom. I confidently expect this year's figures to show a further increase. These figures show that we are getting a useful expansion in the number of calves being retained for beef, to which the calf subsidy is making a very valuable contribution.
Heifer calves of four dairy breeds, including Friesians, are excluded from the Scheme. I know that there has been criticism of the exclusion of Friesian heifer calves on the grounds that most of them, if suitably reared and fattened,

make as good quality beef as heifer calves of the dual-purpose breeds. We have given this question most careful and earnest consideration. It is true that some Friesian heifer calves are reared and fattened for beef, and it is undeniable that they do make good beef. Nevertheless, the great majority are reared as replacements for the dairy herd.
If we were to pay subsidy on these calves, it is estimated that at least 450,000 would qualify every year, adding about £3½ million a year to the cost of the subsidy, without adding to our beef supplies. We should also be paying subsidy on a large number of potential dairy cows, which is certainly not the object of the Scheme. I am afraid, therefore, that we cannot include them under the scheme.
It has also been suggested that we should pay a higher rate of subsidy on hornless calves to encourage breeders to de-horn their calves or breed hornless ones. We have given most careful consideration to the proposal, in consultation with the industry. There is a deep division among the various interests on the desirability of using the subsidy for this purpose. But the advantages of hornless calves are obvious, and as more and more of them are being produced under the stimulus of market preference, we have decided that it would be best to rely upon this factor and not to introduce differential rates of subsidy at this stage.
The calf subsidy has been operating now for rather more than ten years. It was introduced in 1947 by hon. Members opposite, and we continued it by the 1952 Act. I am sure that it is generally accepted as performing a useful function and will continue to do so. The matter which we are discussing now is not so vital perhaps to the nation as the one we have just been considering, but it is important to the agricultural industry and I commend the Schemes to the House.

10.14 p.m.

Mr. A. J. Champion: I agree with the Joint Parliamentary Secretary that the House is a very strange place. The fact that from deciding this afternoon what sort of contents should go between two wafers to make ice cream we went on to great national events and are now back to calf subsidies merely illustrates that point.
This is a scheme identical with the one which was introduced and which we discussed rather fully in 1956. We then offered no opposition to it. Indeed, if I remember rightly, it was welcomed from this side of the House and we sanctioned the Scheme which has been operating ever since. We are glad to learn that it has been operating successfully, because everybody recognises that we wanted to get a greater output of beef from our agricultural industry.
I have only two matters to which I should like to refer briefly. The first is the fact that under the Scheme, as is inevitable, the selection of the calves to qualify for the subsidy is so much a matter of the individual judgment of the certifying officer and has nothing of a scientific nature about it. The Joint Parliamentary Secretary has to some extent referred to that in saying that this Scheme excludes some cattle which have usually bred calves that are suitable for beef. We cannot shut our eyes to the fact that many of the Friesians can produce calves which are highly suitable for the production of good beef.
I am firmly of the opinion that, capable though the officers might be, it is inevitable that, judging as they must solely by the guidance given in this Scheme, calves are certified which cannot efficiently use the feed they get rapidly to gain weight and to provide a good beef carcase. This is a rule of thumb assessment, despite the fact that the certifying officers are very knowledgeable people, and, being a rule of thumb assessment, it is no substitute for what I regard as essential to this industry, namely, a scientifically conducted progeny testing scheme.
I believe that this is something towards which we must work with as much rapidity as possible. We want bulls which have proved themselves through their progeny to be the right bulls for this purpose, producing the calves which will

really make the best use of the feed available. I think that the Ministry must do more in this connection by suitable centres for progeny testing, by demonstration, and by persuading the industry to accept and do very much more in this respect.
The progeny testing of sires used, to which I am referring, is of course not the bulls and boars who, I understand from the Leader of the House, come down from the other place; I am referring here to the bulls that are used for this beef purpose.
There is one other point I want to put to the hon. Gentleman. It arises from a letter which appeared in the Farmers' Weekly on 24th January this year. It reads:
Sir,—Your experience of calves born to Friesian and Ayrshire dams by an Aberdeen-Angus bull coincides very closely with mine. I, too, put cows of the above two breeds to an Aberdeen-Angus bull to breed animals solely for beef, with exactly the same result as yours. Some of the offspring were coloured like Friesians. Unfortunately some of these are heifers and the marking officers under the Calf Rearing Subsidy Scheme are now running round in circles over whether or not they are eligible to be punched because of their colour.
I want to ask the hon. Gentleman whether this has been brought directly to his notice, and whether the certifying officers are still getting giddy running round in circles deciding whether or not to punch and certify these animals. I think perhaps it might have been brought to his notice, and if it has, I feel sure the Ministry will have done something about it and perhaps the certifying officers have received instructions to deal with this point.
These are my two brief points. I regard the first one about progeny testing as being of major importance. I believe the present rule of thumb assessment is simply not good enough, and the sooner we get from that to a more scientific assessment of the value of the calf for beef producing purposes, the better it will be for the agricultural industry and the country.

10.20 p.m.

Mr. Sidney Dye: When we were discussing a similar Scheme two years ago, I pointed out that the number of calves which were then being produced was less than in the years 1950 and 1951. I then asked


whether the Government were satisfied that the Scheme would produce beef calves so that there would be a greater supply of beef. I see from HANSARD that we were not then satisfied that there would be a greater supply because the number of beef calves being reared was less and, when they were fattened for beef purposes, they were killed at a smaller weight and size so that a greater number was required for the same weight of meat.
The world supply of beef cattle is rapidly diminishing. The number being reared in the Argentine is very much less than it was a few years ago. Is the Joint Parliamentary Secretary satisfied that this subsidy Scheme is sufficient to produce the quantity of beef which we in England could produce to satisfy our needs in face of a possible diminishing world supply? I am not satisfied that it is. Something more is required.
In introducing the Scheme the hon. Gentleman went to some pains to explain why the Government were not including provision to give a larger subsidy for horned cattle which were de-horned as calves than they were giving in the case of those who were left with their horns. I have raised this matter previously, when the hon. Gentleman has said that the Government have given earnest consideration to it but have come down in favour of not including a weighted subsidy for polled or de-horned calves. He has admitted that hornless cattle are better for beef purposes and that it is possible to get them to a given weight in a shorter time; but he has said that the Government must not do anything about it, although their officers are certifying on the basis of the conformity of the cattle to a breed, and so forth. That is a lame excuse, for it is admitting that this is a good thing but that the Government will not do anything about it.
In the same way, the hon. Gentleman has not faced the problem of the eradication of tuberculosis. Why does he not say that there will not be a subsidy for any herd which has not been attested, thus speeding up this matter? The Government should use every effort, not merely using subsidies, to encourage farmers to produce more of the right type of beef cattle, so that we can supply our beef requirements from our own production to a greater extent.
I say this in the light of our knowledge of the marked decline in the number of beef cattle now being reared in the Argentine. We have to look one, two, three or perhaps four years ahead. When we find a shortage of beef in the world's markets, it will be no good saying that a £8 10s. subsidy per calf is not enough and that we will have to increase it to encourage more beef production if, at the same time, we do not take the steps that we ought to take to increase our supply of home-produced beef. Therefore, the Scheme has some weaknesses which the Government ought to be able to remedy.

10.25 p.m.

Mr. Godber: With your permission, Mr. Deputy-Speaker, and that of the House, I should like to reply briefly to the points which have been raised.
The hon. Member for Derbyshire, South-East (Mr. Champion) raised two major points. On the first one, which dealt with progeny testing, I agree that there is a great deal to be done. I do not pretend that in submitting this Scheme we are seeking to solve the problem. We have a long way to go. But I am sure that he will agree that this is a long-term matter, and that he does not expect any rapid solution on these lines. However, I take note of the wise words he used on the matter, and I assure him that I will give them very careful thought.
On his second point, in relation to the crosses between Friesian and Aberdeen Angus, and Ayrshire and Aberdeen Angus, I have not seen the letter to which he referred; but I can assure him that none of my officers is giddy at any time through running round in circles.

Mr. Champion: Only the Minister.

Mr. Godber: Never the Minister. In relation to these crosses, the calf of any Friesian crossed with an Aberdeen Angus bull is certainly regarded as eligible, as is an Ayrshire's, provided that it conforms to the standards that we have set down. Eighteen months ago we sought to tighten up the conditions. The hon. Member is quite right; this is a matter to be decided by the individual officer. We try to keep it as accurate as we can, and we have our inspecting officers to try to maintain uniformity between the counties. I believe that the situation is


now much more uniform than it was two years ago.
The hon. Member for Norfolk, South-West (Mr. Dye) put forward one or two interesting points. He asked if the subsidy was sufficient, and claimed that there had been a substantial decline in the number of beef cattle in the world, especially in the Argentine. I would not go as far as that. I would say that there has been some decline, but not to anything like the extent that he suggested. I do not anticipate a falling off in the amount of beef available to the extent that he suggests—and there is a steady increase in our home production. The figures that I quoted in my opening remarks are reasonably satisfactory in that regard, and there is certainly a clear indication of a bigger swing to beef in this country. I hope and believe that the subsidy that we are giving is sufficient, and in relation to the total cost it would be wrong to increase it beyond the present point.
The hon. Member chided the Government for not giving a differential subsidy in respect of dehorning. I would indicate again that I think that there is a sufficient incentive in the ordinary market for the producers to carry out dehorning themselves. I believe that it would be wrong for us to drive farmers to do something good. The average intelligent farmer realises that where conditions are right it pays him to do dehorning. I am sure that is the right approach.
I was rather puzzled by his references to tuberculosis eradication, and his suggestion that we should give no subsidy in respect of a herd which is still infected. I feel very proud of what we have been able to do in the way of tuberculosis eradication, and I believe that we are now in sight of the end of the road. That is a great achievement in these post-war years, and all credit is due to those concerned, not merely the politicians—least of all, perhaps, to them—but to our scientific officers in the Ministry, who have done a grand job of work. I should like to pay my tribute to them now. I do not think that there is any need to use the measures that he suggested in that regard. I think that we shall be able to achieve very satisfactory results without having recourse to them.
I have tried to deal with all the points that have been raised, and I commend the Scheme to the House.

Question put and agreed to.

Resolved,
That the Draft Calf Subsidies (England and Wales and Northern Ireland) Scheme, 1958, a copy of which was laid before this House on 1st July, be approved.

Draft Calf Subsidies (Scotland) Scheme, 1958 [copy laid before the House, 1st July], approved.—[Lord John Hope.]

NATIONAL SERVICE (GRADUATES)

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn.—[Sir G. Wills.]

10.31 p.m.

Mr. Eric Johnson: I wish to turn to a subject very different from that which we have been discussing earlier today, namely, the question of the deferment from National Service of graduates with third-class honours degrees in mathematics in order to take up teaching posts.
This matters, of course, affects many schools, but my reason for wishing to draw attention to it is the immense difficulty which is being experienced by the North Manchester Grammar School in getting teachers of this subject. That school, which is in my constituency, has about 730 boys. It is the only grammar school in north Manchester. It has a very fine record in open scholarships and in public examinations. In fact, about one in five of the boys there go to universities. It has a sixth form of 140 boys and nearly 90 of those are taking science and mathematics. The school has a high reputation for teaching those two subjects.
As I understand the position—and my hon. Friend will no doubt correct me if I am wrong—as regards deferment from National Service of graduates who want to take up teaching posts, it is that those with a first-class or second-class honours degree in mathematics or science who are deferred, a scheme which has since been extended to cover those with a third-class or a pass degree in


chemistry or one of the biological sciences and an ordinary or general degree in science.
For some reason or other, third-class honours graduates in physics and mathematics have to do their National Service. It seems to me to be rather a strange arrangement that a man with an ordinary degree in science, which would often include mathematics as a main subject, has his National Service indefinitely deferred, but that a man with a higher standard of third-class honours in mathematics is not deferred. One of the consequences undoubtedly is that teachers of the subject are almost unobtainable.
When it was known that I intended to raise the subject I received a letter from the headmaster of another grammar school pointing out that the teaching of physics and mathematics in his school was being seriously jeopardised by the call-up of a man with a third-class honours degree in physics. However, I think that I can best explain the effect of the Regulation by referring to the North Manchester Grammar School.
This summer that school is losing from its large mathematics department two men who take a high proportion of the sixth form work. Both men have second-class honours degrees. One of them has a particularly long experience in teaching. Both have gone to take up posts of greater responsibility. The headmaster has advertised several times for replacements. For one post he has not received a single application. For the other he received one application, but, unfortunately, the man had taken up another post before he received the headmaster's letter asking him to come.
The headmaster has written personally to the education departments and to the appointments boards of the universities, and the upshot of it all has been that he has been able to get one man with an ordinary degree in mathematics and science, but he cannot come to the school until next January.
Therefore the position will be that for the next term both of these positions will be unfilled, and it looks that one cannot be filled at all. Obviously the amount of mathematics taught in the main part of the school cannot be reduced

and the loss will have to be borne entirely by the sixth form students in science and mathematics. To show what has been done in the school, in the last nine years the upper science sixth has increased in numbers from 13 to 50 and the numbers are still increasing slightly. In the lower sixth they have increased from 8 to 36. At the moment there will be about 30 to 35 science students in the upper sixth next year who will take mathematics as one of three "A" subjects in the General Certificate of Education; and another 10 or 12 will not only have mathematics, but will have it as a double subject, mathematics and theoretical mathematics, for two of their "A" subjects. The upshot of this will be that for the next term these boys will receive much less than half the attention they ought to have, and for the first term next year they will receive a little more than half.
There is one way out of this difficulty. The headmaster has heard of someone with a third-class honours degree in mathematics, with a certificate in education and an excellent report from his practice school. He has already been refused deferment, but in view of the very serious position at the school the headmaster thought it right to interview him in the hope that, if he were satisfactory, this decision could be reconsidered. He found that the man had suitable qualifications for the post that the school was trying so desperately to fill, but my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education, to whom the application was made in the first instance, felt that he could not make any exception in an individual case and that he could not make special representations to my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service for this man's deferment.
I am, of course, aware that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Labour and National Service has explained the need for the present Regulations by saying that there is a serious shortage of graduates with third-class honours or a pass degree in physics and mathematics in the Armed Forces, and that obviously there is a greater need in the Forces for teachers of these subjects than for teachers of chemistry and biology. That may well be so. I have no idea to what extent these subjects are taught or needed in the Forces nowadays. It would be out of


order for me to go into the subject of the education branches of the different Services, but I think that it is open to doubt whether the most efficient and economical use is made of teachers by putting some of them into uniform. It seems to me that the present policy will defeat its own object. If a knowledge of mathematics and physics is needed in the Forces, surely the right place to start learning these subjects is at school. If mathematics is not taught as well as it might be at school, because those who would be teaching it are in the Forces, surely the standard will progressively decline.
In any event, this source of supply of teachers for the Forces is likely to dry up when the call-up ends in 1960. I cannot agree that it is reasonable that a deferment should be granted to a man with a pass degree in science but refused to a man with a third-class honours degree in mathematics. I hope that I can persuade my hon. Friend to accept that point of view as being reasonable. If I cannot do that, may I try to persuade him that my right hon. Friend the Minister of Education is wrong in saying that exceptions cannot be made in individual cases. Surely, careful consideration should be given to every individual case in the light of the need wherever the need is greater at a particular time, rather than that we should try to stick to a rigid set of rules. I believe that, in the national interest, the case I have tried to make on behalf of the grammar schools is stronger than the case which can be made for the Services, and I hope that my hon. Friend will give it his sympathetic and favourable consideration.

10.41 p.m.

Mr. William Hannan: I am grateful to the hon. Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) for raising this subject and giving me a brief opportunity to add a word in support of the contention which he has advanced. I put questions on this very topic last February, and, in reply, the Minister was kind enough to let me have a copy of his first circular, in paragraph 5 of which are set out the conditions for deferment of men who have degrees from universities. I must confess that, coming from Glasgow, I was not too well acquainted with the degrees of English universities, but I know that in Scotland

graduates with third-class honours degrees are looked upon very highly.
The position has been made very clear, I think, by the circular issued only this month by the Minister of Labour, in which the conditions are plainly set out. I quote from paragraph (iii):
Indefinite deferment for school teaching may be granted to men with first or second-class honours degrees in science or mathematics, and also to those with a third-class honours or pass degree in chemistry or one of the biological sciences, or with a general or ordinary degree in science.
As the hon. Member for Blackley has said, the matter seems mast inconsistent. Whereas a third-class honours teacher in chemistry, geology or one of the biological sciences is exempt, a third-class honours man in mathematics and physics is not so exempt. Is not that the position? As the hon. Gentleman pointed out, it may be that the Services must have their quota, but I would make this suggestion to the Minister. It has been mooted in the past that, because of the overall shortage of science teachers in schools, we should call upon men in industry to be seconded for a number of hours each week in order that they might go to certain schools and lend assistance. Would not it be more practical to use such men in the area adjacent to an Army unit, wherever they are, and so relieve men who have indicated that their bent and calling is to go into the schools?
In Britain's position today vis-à-vis the United States and Soviet Russia, in the production of science graduates and teachers and the emphasis there is in industry upon science, the importance of teaching in the schools is becoming more pronounced. We have had report upon report—the Appleton Report and others—stressing the need for teachers. I know that the Armed Forces must have their quota, but I ask the Minister to look at the matter again, bearing in mind that, unless we have more teachers in the schools, we shall cut off the source of supply, as the hon. Member for Blackley said.
In reply to my Question on 19th February this year, the Minister said:
I am ready to look at the matter again … I agree that in this respect the position is not wholly logical, because the deferment and quota schemes were applied to industry before


the different deferments for teaching were made by my Ministry".—[OFFICIAL REPORT, 19th February, 1958; Vol. 582, c. 1206.]
For the Minister, a Scotsman, to agree that something was not quite logical was a great admission to make. What he was saying was not logical was that third-class honours graduates in mathematics and science are exempt if they enter jobs approved by the Minister, but are not so exempt if they are undergoing teacher-training courses, even if they are attending a university in order to take the degree of bachelor of education.
In other words, the cart is being put before the horse in this instance, and I should like to ask whether the Minister has given to this matter the further consideration he indicated in his reply. Having admitted that there is a certain amount of illogicality in the position, and as Scotsmen do not like illogical things to last for ever, has he altered his mind, or can he give hope that the present position will be altered?

10.47 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Ministry of Labour and National Service (Mr. Richard Wood): In replying to the hon. Member for Glasgow, Maryhill (Mr. Hannan) I will try to be guile exceptionally logical, but, first, I should like to thank my hon. Friend the Member for Manchester, Blackley (Mr. E. Johnson) for giving me the chance of making some statement on this matter. In the short time that I have been at the Ministry of Labour, I have gathered that it is a question that bothers quite a number of my hon. Friends and other hon. Members, and I have no need at all—although I was extremely interested to hear what my hon. Friend said about the difficulties, in particular, of the North Manchester Grammar School—to be convinced of the very serious difficulties which the teaching profession in general is facing at present.
If I may, I will answer my hon. Friend's questions as I go along, but first I should like to say a word in reply to the suggestion made by the hon. Member for Maryhill that it is illogical that graduates with third-Cass honours or pass degrees in physics or mathematics can be deferred for defence projects or the development of atomic energy but not for teaching. I am very frightened, indeed, to admit to him

that there is any illogicality in it at all, but I must do so, and the reason for it is, as he suggested, the way in which the deferment scheme developed. I should like to say a little more about that in a moment.
As he knows, by 1953, I think it was, all science and engineering graduates could be deferred for defence projects and work connected with atomic energy but, as he also knows, the question of the deferment for teachers was not raised at all until 1956—three years later. By that time, the number of deferments was so large that the deferment for teaching, which the hon. Member would, naturally, like, could not be made available to all science graduates.
I should like to look rather more closely at the development of this deferment scheme because, in this, as in a number of other questions, a study of the history makes a little easier the understanding of the present. Incidentally, I would mention that for the benefit of hon. Members a note on the deferment scheme in general has been put by my right hon. Friend in the Library, and a copy has been placed in the Library of the other place. I think the hon. Member has already availed himself of it.
The deferment scheme for science and engineering graduates was originally introduced in 1949 in order to allow a few graduates of high calibre to be deferred for important work connected with the defence programme. That was the beginning of it. As it developed and as the years went by, there was naturally pressure to extend the scheme, and by five years ago, in 1953, indefinite deferment could be granted for any science or engineering graduate for employment on research or development work on designated defence projects. That is what I have already mentioned, and that included the development of atomic energy.
It was not, as I said, until 1956, three years later, that the scheme was first extended to civil employment. There were representations from the Education Departments; the matter was considered by my right hon. Friend's Technical Personnel Committee and indefinite deferment was then granted to science graduates, including mathematics graduates, with first or second-class honours for approved teaching posts in


secondary schools. In the following year, in 1957, in order to try to help industry and other important work, indefinite deferment could be granted to graduates with first-class honours for any work which needed a degree in science and engineering.
The industry and the teaching profession rather naturally continued to press for greater relaxation—I make no complaint about that—and in respect of this year the Ministry of Labour made two more concessions for graduates leaving universities in 1958. The first was that the scheme which allowed first-class honours men an almost free choice of employment, was extended to men with second-class honours who had also taken a higher degree, and the other extension was that in addition to the men with first or second-class honours, those with third-class and pass degrees in chemistry or biology, and those, as my hon. Friend said, with ordinary or general degrees in science, were allowed indefinite deferment for approved teaching posts.
Before I consider the precise question that the hon. Gentleman raised, I should like to point out the effect which the arrangements already in force have in fact had. In 1957 there were available for National Service—that is, excluding the men with first-class honours who anyhow had a free choice of employment—600 young men with degrees in physics or mathematics and under one or other of the schemes which I have already mentioned, out of that 600, 370 were deferred. That includes 109 deferred for teaching in schools. Another 100 were medically unfit and, therefore, the Services in the end got 130 out of that 600 available. Therefore, if I may say so with respect, it is not quite true for my hon. Friend to suggest that all these people whom he thinks ought to be teaching are in fact in uniform. A great many have been deferred under one or other of these schemes. The 1958 figures are not yet available, but I understand that the number called up will be a great deal fewer than the 130 out of 600 called up in 1957.
The whole crux of this question, as my hon. Friend has reminded me, and as I think the hon. Member for Maryhill also mentioned, is the need which the Services have for these particular graduates in

physics and mathematics. I need not remind the House that modern weapons have become increasingly complex. The Services are doing their own research and development on a great many of them.
The Army, for instance, needs graduates for its Atomic Warfare Establishment, and the Royal Artillery Rocket Regiment. The Air Force needs them for the establishment at Farnborough and guided weapon project teams, and, I understand, they are also needed by the Services in their education branches in order to try to train Regular soldiers in the principles involved in the operation and maintenance of these complicated weapons. There are other needs the Services have, and the number available to them is not really very great.
The reason for the discrimination between degrees in different subjects, physics and mathematics on one side, and the others on the other side, is the much greater need of the Services for men with degrees in physics or mathematics than for men with degrees in chemistry and biology. It is obvious that the need for the one is much greater than the other. Particularly as National Service, as we all hope, draws to a close there are a great many different interests competing strongly for the manpower available: the defence Departments and their contractors; industry, which rightly stresses the need to try to keep research and production methods up to date; those who are connected with nuclear power; the teaching profession, which naturally claims a very high priority for its work; and, lastly, the Services, the Cinderellas, beg to be left with the few men they need to meet their wants.
The job of the Minister of Labour is to try to balance the competing claims between all these varying interests. It is suggested that we are making it difficult for the schools to get the teachers they need. I require no convincing of the importance of increasing the number of teachers in science and mathematics. I am immensely conscious of the great difficulty which the schools are facing at the moment in trying to get these teachers. The Minister has already made very considerable concessions. There have been relaxations almost every year. Three hundred graduates were deferred last


year for school teaching, and there are likely to be over 400 in 1958.
If we make it easier for the teaching profession, we make it at the same time harder for defence projects, industry, nuclear power and the Services. Therefore, the Minister's task, with the help of his Technical Personnel Committee, is to try to arrive at a decision which gives a reasonable share to everyone. These deferment arrangements for graduates leaving this year are the result of careful, if not painful, consideration. They are now in operation, and even if shown to be undesirable, it would be

impracticable to alter them at this stage. They are not by any means immutable, they have been varied from year to year, and the Technical Personnel Committee reviews them at the Ministry's request in the autumn. At the next review the Committee will not only study the results of the present concessions, but will reflect on what has been said about them, and will undoubtedly bear in mind the considerations which both hon. Gentlemen put before me this evening.

Question put and agreed to.

Adjourned accordingly at one minute to Eleven o'clock.